What If Zone 2 Running Is Slowing You Down?

September 24, 2025 | By

Audio

Video

Download the Transcript

Low heart rate training, Easy running and zone 2 efforts…

If you’ve touched distance running YouTube or listened to a health and fitness optimisation podcast lately, you’ve heard about it. It’s everywhere.

But then I listened to a podcast that goes deep on a huge scientific narrative review of Zone 2 training and basically says there is no evidence that zone 2 is the magical zone for overall health and fitness for the general population.

And it got me wondering: is Zone 2 actually as effective as everyone says? Or have I, and maybe you, been overdoing it this whole time?

Listen to audio podcast below on your next run or watch the video above to learn more

What You’ll Learn

  • What Zone 2 really is and why it’s kind of a mess to define
  • What the science actually says about its effectiveness (especially if you’re not elite)
  • Why most real people can’t train like pros even if we want to
  • How I’m rethinking my entire relationship with Zone 2

What Is Zone 2?

Zone 2 is what most people call the ‘easy zone’—roughly 60–75% of your max heart rate, or what many define as below and up to your first lactate threshold aka LT1.

But here’s the thing, it’s not exact. Depending on whether you’re using a 3-zone, 5-zone, or 7-zone heart rate model, the boundaries shift. Most amateur runners can’t do a finger prick lactate threshold test on every run so some people use heart rate, some use pace, some just go by effort or feel.

That vagueness? It creates a problem.

Because if you’re only training 3–4 times a week, and you’re spending all that time in this ‘easy-but-not-quite-easy-enough’ bucket… you might be doing just enough to feel like you’re training but not hitting the stimulus you need to actually improve.

Study #1

I went deeper on this narrative review of zone 2 by Kristi Storoschuk published in May of 2025 and one line stuck with me:

“The results were that we really found very limited evidence that zone two actually leads to these outcomes that are claimed online.”

Boom.

“The best training blends intensities, not all easy, not all hard.”

What The Science Actually Supports

So what does the research actually support? Especially if you’re not an elite athlete?

Here’s what’s interesting: when you look at the research on time-efficient training, sub-threshold running—that’s low Zone 3—and targeted zone 4/vo2 max intervals often deliver faster results than pure Zone 2 work.

A 2015 meta-analysis (many studies) by Milanović looked at 28 studies.

The finding? High-intensity interval training improved VO₂ max more effectively than moderate-intensity aka zone 2 continuous training—and in less time.

Analogy: Think of your aerobic system like an engine. Zone 2 fine-tunes it; makes it efficient at burning fuel. Zone 3? That’s like adding more horsepower with a turbocharger. Same fuel system, but now you can sustain faster speeds.

Zone 4? That’s a super charger with even more horsepower.

But here’s what most people miss: this research wasn’t just about elite runners. It focused on general population training and mostly amateur and sedentary non active people.

If you cycle, row, do HIIT cardio classes or swim, you can often handle 3–4 high-intensity sessions a week. Your cardiovascular system recovers quickly.

But running? Running adds impact to your musculoskeletal. Your heart and lungs might bounce back overnight, but your joints, tendons, ligaments and bones adapt much more slowly, sometimes taking a few months versus 2-3 weeks for cardiovascular fitness gains.

That means higher risk of developing an over use bodily injury even though you are breathing fine and feel great.

That’s why runners need to be more strategic about running intensity than other endurance athletes. It’s a much higher risk the faster you run.

A Smarter Week

So what’s the option if you’re training 3–4 times a week and still want to improve? Let’s break this down practically.

TypeWeekly VolumeCommon MistakeSmart Fix
Elites (pros)160km (100 miles)+Overload, but recoverable80/20 works—they have the hours
Fake pros (sub – elites)80-100km/week (50-60 miles)Too much ‘meh’ Zone 2Burnout without adaptation
Real people30–50km/week (15-30 miles)No intensity, no structureNeed precise, minimal intensity

Here’s a smarter 4-run structure that works for most people

  • 1 x genuine high Zone 2 30-45 min easy runs (conversational easy pace) with a fast finish where you get into low to mid zone 3 for the last 5-10 mins before your cool down
  • 1 x sub-threshold tempo run (comfortably hard, sustainable)
  • 1 x short interval session (VO₂max reps, hills, or track work)
  • 1x long zone 1/low zone 2 run (conversational easy pace – even easier than the high zone 2 run)

Only got 3 days to run each week? Here’s an easy variation

  • 1 x sub-threshold tempo run (comfortably hard, sustainable)
  • 1 x short interval session (VO₂max reps, hills, or track work)
  • 1x long zone 2 run (conversational easy pace) with a fast finish for rthe last 10-20% where you get into low/mid zone 3.

A study found that adding just one weekly threshold session improved performance in well-trained athletes without increasing injury risk.

Analogy: Zone 2 is like cooking pasta at a gentle simmer; the water’s moving but not bubbling much. It’s sustainable and steady. Zone 3 is when the water reaches a rolling boil; more energy, still controlled.

Add some Zone 4 high-intensity intervals, and it’s like turning the heat to maximum; pasta water vigorously bubbling and almost spilling over. Zone 4 is when the pot actually boils over, putting out the flame and generally creating a mess on your stove if you don’t catch it in time.

The key? Precision over volume. Most recreational runners can’t absorb the same training stress as habitual cardio class goers, cyclists or swimmers because of the impact factor.

“True fitness isn’t built in weeks; you can’t microwave aerobic development.”

Why This Matters

But this isn’t just about running physiology. It’s about mental models and in particular your belief systems.

I went all-in on Zone 2 for the last 14 years after reading Phil Maffetones big book of endurance. And it helped. I improved, the runners I coach got faster and healthier. But that wasn’t because Zone 2 was magic. It was because we were consistent and progressive.

The thing is, different races demand different approaches.

For shorter races—like 5Ks, 10Ks, even half marathons—the primary demands are speed, lactate threshold/lactate tolerance, and VO₂ max. These adapt best to threshold work and intervals, not just easy mileage.

But for marathons, ultras, and long triathlons? Zone 2 and the 80/20 approach still make sense because you’re putting the time in. When your race is 3+ hours, you need that aerobic base and fat-burning efficiency that comes from sustained easy volume.

It’s not that Zone 2 is bad. It’s that most people are applying marathon training methods to 5k park run goals.

Belief in your training approach is incredibly powerful. It can be the difference between sticking with a program or abandoning it—which is why I’ve dedicated an entire section to mental models in my upcoming book “The 1% Better Runner.” More details on that soon.

What Coaches Think

Okay, out of the lab and into the coach’s office. Coaches are split on this narrative review of zone 2, and that’s useful.

A) The Pushback (Steve Magness)

Steve Magness—coach, author—thinks the hot takes miss the long game. Most studies are short: 4–8 weeks. Intervals pop early, sure.

But over months, that easy aerobic work compounds; capillaries, mitochondrial density, durability. His big idea: you can’t microwave aerobic development.

Also, the best training blends intensities. Not all-easy, not all-hard; integration and time horizon matter. In other words: polarized or pyrmaid based training, not dogma.

Analogy: Intervals are espresso, sharp jolt. Easy volume is the slow drip that fills the pot. For one cup, espresso wins. For a household, the pot wins.

B) The Co-Sign (Adam Raper)

Coach Adam Raper lands closer to this review. He sees the best mitochondrial bang near lactate threshold, the top of the aerobic zone.

His playbook: lots of LT steady and LT intervals dosed precisely by heart rate or occasional blood lactate.

Think 10/30/10 LT steady (10’ aerobic / 30’ LT / 10’ aerobic) or 4×4’–5×5’ at LT with long aerobic floats.

He caps total LT minutes (≈30’ for up-to-10K) and avoids ‘threshold pace’ guessing. Why? He wants to stress the Cori cycle, clear and recycle lactate, without tipping over.

His take on Zone 2: great for longevity and frequency, but for many non-marathoners it’s an inefficient middle; too easy to drive threshold, too hard to be full recovery.

C) Where We Agree

Both sides actually agree on more than it seems:

– Don’t pick a side—blend intensities.

– Context matters: training age, volume, and time horizon change the answer.

– For runners (impact sports), precise dosing prevents injury.

In summary: If you’ve got big volume and a long runway, easy work compounds. If you’re time-crunched, sub-threshold plus a touch of VO₂ is your fast lane.”

Links & Learnings

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Articles Archive