The cold plunge became the ultimate biohacker flex. The research paints a much more complicated picture — and for lifters, it might actually be counterproductive. Cold water immersion went from a niche recovery tool used by elite athletes to a mainstream wellness trend seemingly overnight. Social media is full of people climbing into ice baths at dawn, filming their gasping reactions, and claiming benefits ranging from reduced inflammation to improved focus to accelerated fat loss. Cold plunge tubs are now a multi-billion dollar market. It made ACSM's trending fitness list in 2025. The appeal is understandable. There's something viscerally satisfying about doing something uncomfortable and believing it makes you better. And cold exposure does have real physiological effects — it triggers a norepinephrine release, vasoconstriction, and an acute stress response that genuinely makes you feel alert and energized. But "it makes you feel good" and "it improves your t...
It became the most popular training protocol in modern fitness almost overnight. But the evidence behind Zone 2's supposed superiority is thinner than you've been told.
If you've spent any time in fitness spaces over the past two years, you've heard about Zone 2. Peter Attia popularized it. Iñigo San Millán gave it scientific credibility. And seemingly overnight, every podcast listener and longevity enthusiast was doing long, slow cardio sessions while monitoring their heart rate with religious devotion.
The pitch is simple and appealing — train at a specific low intensity where your body maximizes fat oxidation and builds mitochondrial density without generating excessive lactate. Do this for 45-60 minutes, three to four times per week, and you'll build a metabolic engine that keeps you healthy and lean for decades.
It sounds great. And there's a kernel of truth in it. But the way Zone 2 has been adopted by the fitness mainstream involves some significant leaps from what the research actually supports. And those leaps matter if you're spending four hours per week on something that might not be the best use of your training time.
Photo by Chander R on Unsplash
What Zone 2 Actually Is
Zone 2 refers to a heart rate training zone roughly corresponding to 60-70% of your maximum heart rate. It's the intensity where you can hold a conversation but you're clearly working. Physiologically, it sits at or just below your first lactate threshold — the point where blood lactate begins to accumulate above resting levels.
The theoretical basis comes from San Millán's research on lactate metabolism. The idea is that training in this zone specifically targets Type I (slow-twitch) muscle fibers and their mitochondria, improving your body's ability to use fat as fuel and clear lactate efficiently. San Millán's work with elite cyclists showed that the fittest athletes had exceptional fat oxidation capacity at this intensity, and he proposed that training at this specific zone would develop these qualities.
That part of the science is sound. Where things get shaky is the claim that Zone 2 is uniquely effective for these adaptations — that training above or below this zone simply doesn't produce the same mitochondrial benefits. That claim doesn't hold up nearly as well.
The Evidence Doesn't Support Unique Superiority
Here's where the Zone 2 narrative starts to crack. A critical review published by Granata et al. (2018) in Sports Medicineexamined the relationship between training intensity and mitochondrial adaptations. What they found was that mitochondrial content and function improved across a range of intensities, not just at one narrow zone. In fact, higher intensity intervals were equally or more effective at stimulating mitochondrial biogenesis through PGC-1α signaling — the master regulator of mitochondrial development.
MacInnis and Gibala (2017) published a review in The Journal of Physiology that came to a similar conclusion. High-intensity interval training produced rapid mitochondrial adaptations in as little as six sessions over two weeks. The adaptations were comparable to those achieved with much higher volumes of moderate-intensity continuous training. In terms of time efficiency, HIIT wasn't just competitive — it was superior.
Bishop et al. (2019) added further nuance in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, showing that the specific mitochondrial adaptations depend on the type and intensity of training, but that there is no single "optimal zone" for mitochondrial health. Different intensities stress the system in different ways, and the body adapts to all of them.
The inconvenient truth for Zone 2 devotees is that you likely need to train at roughly 65% of peak work rate or above to drive meaningful mitochondrial adaptations — and for many people, that intensity actually sits above what they're doing in their Zone 2 sessions, especially if their zones are calculated from an inaccurate max heart rate formula.
The Real Problem With Zone 2 Culture
The issue isn't that Zone 2 training is bad. It's genuinely useful, particularly for building an aerobic base, managing fatigue between hard sessions, and developing the ability to sustain moderate effort for extended periods. For endurance athletes, it absolutely has a place in a well-structured program.
The problem is what happened when the fitness internet got hold of it. Zone 2 was extracted from its context — periodized training programs for competitive endurance athletes — and repackaged as a universal prescription for metabolic health. Suddenly people who had never run a mile were spending hours per week shuffling on treadmills at a heart rate they could barely keep low enough, convinced this was the only scientifically valid form of cardio.
Meanwhile, those same people often weren't doing any high-intensity work at all. And the research from Milanovic et al. (2015) published in Sports Medicine is clear on this — a meta-analysis of 723 participants found that high-intensity interval training produced significantly greater improvements in VO2max compared to continuous moderate-intensity training. VO2max is arguably the single most important fitness metric you can improve, and Zone 2 alone isn't the most efficient way to improve it.
If you're doing Zone 2 exclusively because an influencer told you it's the optimal protocol, you might be leaving your most impactful training adaptations on the table.
What Actually Works
The best cardio programming for most people isn't Zone 2 or HIIT — it's both, in appropriate proportions. This is the polarized training model that elite endurance coaches have used for decades. Roughly 80% of training volume at low intensity (Zone 1-2) and 20% at high intensity (Zone 4-5), with relatively little time spent in the moderate "threshold" zone.
But here's the key detail that gets lost in the podcasts — that 80/20 split applies to people doing 10-15+ hours of training per week. If you're doing three to four cardio sessions per week for 30-45 minutes each, spending all of that time at low intensity means you're barely doing any high-intensity work at all. For most recreational exercisers, flipping the script and making sure at least one or two sessions per week involve genuine high-intensity effort will produce better overall fitness improvements than four sessions of Zone 2.
If you're going to train in zones — and it can be a useful framework — invest in an accurate way to measure your heart rate. Wrist-based optical sensors are notoriously unreliable during exercise, often drifting by 10-20 beats per minute. A chest strap heart rate monitor gives you data you can actually trust, which matters if you're trying to stay in a specific zone.
The Takeaway
Zone 2 training is a useful tool in a broader training toolkit. It is not the singular metabolic hack that the internet made it out to be. The research supports a range of training intensities for mitochondrial and cardiovascular adaptations, and for most people, the biggest bang for their buck comes from including genuine high-intensity work alongside their easier sessions.
If you're spending four hours a week in Zone 2 and zero minutes doing hard intervals, you're not following the science. You're following a trend.
Sources:
- Granata, C., Jamnick, N.A. & Bishop, D.J. (2018). Training-Induced Changes in Mitochondrial Content and Respiratory Function in Human Skeletal Muscle. Sports Medicine.
- MacInnis, M.J. & Gibala, M.J. (2017). Physiological Adaptations to Interval Training and the Role of Exercise Intensity. The Journal of Physiology.
- Bishop, D.J., Botella, J. & Granata, C. (2019). CrossTalk Opposing View: Exercise Training Volume Is More Important Than Training Intensity to Promote Increases in Mitochondrial Content. The Journal of Physiology.
- Milanovic, Z., Sporis, G. & Weston, M. (2015). Effectiveness of High-Intensity Interval Training (HIT) and Continuous Endurance Training for VO2max Improvements. Sports Medicine.
This article contains an affiliate link. If you purchase through it, I may earn a small commission at no extra cost to you. I only recommend products I personally use and believe in.
Comments
Post a Comment