So, my Garmin 530 has been harping on my workout rides being “unproductive” because I’m “too focused on high intensity activities.”

So, I’ve tried doing some Zone 2 rides. I have two questions.

One: I’ve read that Zone 2 rides need to be “long” but, I’ve only got about an hour a day for riding (except most Sundays). Is a 1 hour Zone 2 ride still beneficial?

Two: I have no problem maintaining Zone 2 on the flat, but when I’ve got to climb, even in my easiest gear, my HR fairly quickly goes into Zone 3. How do you stay in Zone 2 when you have no choice but to climb a hill?

I can't stay in zone 2 unless I'm riding with others in a paceline. I don't worry about it. I do try to do some rides at what to me is low effort. Sometimes I can manage to get a majority of my time in zone 3. But that takes some effort on my part to keep from attacking a hill.

If you only have a limited time to ride, then don't worry about it. Do what makes you feel good about the ride. Are you riding 3 or more times per week?

I saw a video by Cam Nichols on Zone 2 training and the mistake that most riders make - NOT doing constant pressure on the pedals. Uphill, downhill, on the flat - same power. This means you crawl uphill, and fly downhill, because you're pedaling when others are coasting. It might mean getting lower gears, so you can climb at the top of Zone 2 instead of mid Zone 3.

BUT it's boring as hell. I don't know that I'd bother doing it for midweek 60-90 minute rides. There, maybe do intervals? I used to do a midweek route with a number of hills that made for good hill intervals, with rest in between. Then I'd go much slower on weekend rides.

A professional follows a strict schedule of training, resting, eating, long rides, etc. Thus, he/she might count on a relatively stable heart rate that can be a base of measuring “HR - zone 2” riding.

By contrast, a casual rider performs intermittent training (usually has a job as the main activity), rests and eats less “regulated”, may train under psychological pressure of other day to day events, under variable temperature (even 38-40 Celsius – if this is the available time slot), etc. All those can easily introduce a bias of +/- 15 beats, which makes HR zones riding to be very misleading.

I'll just say that it's pretty hard to maintain zone 2 power on descents. Too much braking into curves, and too much acceleration out of them.

Mt. Hamilton is my local long distance climb. I try to pedal on the descent as much as I can, but my average power downhill is just 50-110 watts. Zone 1.

Yeah, it's more for shorter, straighter descents. Think Sand Hill from Junipero Serra/Santa Cruz to Portola. I got up to 38 mph going past Whiskey Hill doing the "constant pressure on the pedals" thing. But that steep pitch after Manzanita sucks up any momentum really quickly.

EDIT: I also really doubt most riders could do Hamilton in zone 2.

Here's a recent narrative review of Zone 2 training: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40560504/

They say that most of the evidence about Z2's optimality is from observational studies of high-volume elite athletes, not the general public. They conclude: "current evidence does not support Zone 2 training as the optimal intensity" for lower volume riders and that "prioritizing higher exercise intensities (> Zone 2) is critical to maximize cardiometabolic health benefits."

So, if you like Zome 2, you can do it without mental stress and anguish, and it's fulfilling your goals, continue doing it. If you're stressing cuz your Garmin is telling you you're being unproductive? Ignore your Garmin.

I'm curious how they define both "elite endurance athletes" and "the general public". because I suspect most folks here don't fall neatly into either category.

Even Seiler, one of the earliest proponents of polarized training, said he came to his polarized recommendations by observing high volume elite national- and Olympic-level athletes; and his 80-20 polarization is about sessions, not about time. That means he was suggesting that 80% of high volume athletes' intention for sessions should be low-intensity sessions, and 20% of training sessions should be intended to be high-intensity (Seiler uses a 3-zone system, so his Z1 includes what most of us call "Zone 2"). He doesn't think that a low-intensity session needs to be low intensity every second, just as he doesn't think high intensity must be high intensity every second. One-third of a Tabata Interval session is low-intensity.

In the end though, isn't "Zone 2 Training" just "Base Training" wrapped in scientific-sounding garb? Something you do in the spring to rebuild after a winter layoff?

Maybe it should be but this is July and the OP is concerned about his Garmin's judgement.

I suspect my Garmin has given up on me.

Outside of the "base training" context, I view it as filler in between intensity sessions. Even at that, its need is probably determined by the athlete's intensity and volume. I've been doing 15+ hour weeks with a couple of high intensity sessions thrown in each week...if I deviated too far outside of zone 2 for too long on the easier sessions, I'd burn out pretty quick...or the quality of my intensity sessions would really degrade. If I was doing <6 hour weeks, I probably wouldn't even bother looking at my power meter, outside of interval rides.

What is this "winter" you speak of? And wtf is a "layoff"?

We have "winter," but the "layoff" part confused me as well.

I can ride to it but if I stay below about 4K there is no snow.

I think most folks here do fall in "general public". I "followed" a few big names on Strava for a few years and I noticed distances of 25000 - 35000 per year, with at least 5 riding days per week, usually with elevation well above 1500 m. I think most people here don't even dream at a half of that level of training.

1) Short answer is: it depends. Staying close to your LT1 for an extended period of time is beneficial. The longer the duration, the better it is in terms of endurance gain. How many hours per week do you train? If you don't train a lot, I wouldn't bother trying to stay close to your LT1. In fact, I would favor intervals if I would train a low amount of hours (5h, for instance) as it's proven to be more beneficial for the health and cardiovascular fitness than only doing endurance paced workouts. If you're training a lot, then yes it's important to stay in certain zones for a certain time (IE, 80% LT1, 20% LT2 / VO2max). On my end, I aim for 80% LT1, 10% LT2 and 10% VO2max.

2) According to experts, you should stay in that zone 100% of the time if you want to maximize gains in terms of mythocondria, hence why it is nearly impossible when riding outside. You will go above it when climbing and below it when descending and/or when stopping at traffic lights, etc. Best way to do this IMO is to use a training with erg mode and track your HR. Don't rely on Strava's zone indicator as it shows the total time spent in zones, not the continuous.

San Diego is pretty hilly. Some of them can be quite steep. I'm at the overlap of "very good" and "excellent" on Coggan's w/kg chart and I find myself having to produce > z2 levels of power and heart rate at time to time. I just don't mind it too much and try to take it easy on hills for the most part when endurance is my goal.

Or ride the trainer. I'll do (up to) 3-4 hours on a Zwift C or B based group ride pretty regularly, especially in the winter when it is not 70F and sunny . But I do have a pretty amenable setup in my garage.

(stock photo of the garage pain cave - usually a road bike on there)

I would seriously question any expert who stresses this. Your body doesn't have "zones". The thresholds between them are entirely arbitrary. As long as you keep your easy rides easy, you're going to be fine. Low zone 3 is not significantly different than high zone 2. Taking a couple minutes off while you ride down a hill isn't going to destroy your adaptations, nor is the one 30 second effort you have to do to get over the steep part of a hill.

When it rains a lot, and it's too dark to ride after work.

(Now John will be a smart ass and ask me what work is.)

Understood, but the "general public" aren't riding 3-5 days a week, putting in 6-10 hours on the bike, either.

5 days a week, all year, 25,000+ miles would be 100 miles plus ever ride ! nuts.

Good advice. Zones aren't metabolic, but they are a way to talk to an athlete about how hard they're working. I think of zone 2 rides as a way to get exercise while waiting for the fatigue from harder efforts to go away. Stress -> fatigue -> recovery. Some studies suggest that recovery from a high intensity effort can take up to 72 hours.

But if you're trying to get that mysterious Garmin algorithm to say "productive", I don't know what to say. That thing is nutty. I let my power numbers tell me if I'm improving or declining. To quote (from memory) Andy Coggan, "the best measure of performance ability is performance itself".

Yes, that's nuts. 25,000 km is somewhat less nuts. Since the poster above mentioned height in meters, they probably meant distance in km. But half a grade deduction for not including units.

It is about Km, but it is still highly impressive. Se below Romain Bardet, recently retired:
- 32,296 Km in 2021.
- "Only" 14,505 Km so far in 2025, the retirement year.
- See "Today" ride: 103 Km, 2,555 m elevation. Just "playing" after retirement...
And he is not the pro with the highest mileage. They really are in another cycling world than us. For us, copying from them anything else than "dressing etiquette" is a nonsense and does not work.