I’ve seen a decent bit of content on zone 2 and the benefits, but some of the content I’ve read seems to indicate there is a minimum effective dose per workout of some (usually arbitrary) number of minutes. Are you aware of any reason shorter duration zone 2 workouts would not cause an adaptation when volume equated with longer durations?
The reason I ask is that it is difficult for me to fit much conditioning in at the moment, but I can often spare 10-20 minutes to bike or row (I am fortunate to have both an airdyne and a rower at home). I am especially inclined to do so when I know the effort will not be particularly grueling. A normal day for me may involve a ten minute row and a 20 minute bike. A few times a week, I’ll work a little harder, but most sessions I keep it at RPE 6ish with the intention of working my aerobic base. I have no intention of stopping this as I know the added movement is beneficial for my health. Just curious if you think I am missing out on some cardio gains by not pushing harder.
I am currently running the low fatigue template (4 day low intraset fatigue). My primary goal is to be able to recover more quickly between sets in hopes that I can eventually fit a little more strength training into the limited time I currently have.
Nearly all of the stuff regarding this is 100% made up including the “definitions” of zones, unique benefits to particular zones, minimum dosing, etc. It’s all made up.
A bout as short as 5 minutes would definitely count as conditioning. I would aim to get in ~150 minutes per week total.
In general, no. HR and metabolic expenditure definitely track together, but not in a usable way. For example, MET cost is higher in zone 3 than zone 2, but not in a zone-predicted way.