---
title: "You are probably riding your easy rides too hard"
date: 2026-06-21
categories: ["Training"]
url: https://www.semiprocycling.com/digest/you-are-probably-riding-your-easy-rides-too-hard
author: Damian Ruse (SEMIPRO Cycling)
---
# You are probably riding your easy rides too hard

[Listen to this issue as a podcast](https://www.buzzsprout.com/6262/episodes/19374632)

![](https://www.semiprocycling.com/digest/images/8746a49ac7f3a4081fcb0532.webp)

Most riders treat their endurance zone like a tightrope. Two watts too low and the ride was junk. Two watts too high and they have blown the recovery. So they sit there nudging the effort up and down, convinced there is one exact spot where the magic happens.

A new study suggests there is not, and that if anything you are probably better off sitting a little lower than you think.

Researchers took 20 trained amateur runners, mostly in their mid-30s and all fit enough to run 10km in under 55 minutes, and split them into two groups matched for training volume. One group did their endurance work right at the top of the moderate domain, sitting at the first threshold. The other group sat 10 to 15 percent below that, lower in the same zone. Both trained five times a week for six weeks. Same volume, different place in the zone.

In cyclist terms, the higher group sat around the top of zone 2, near 75 to 80 percent of CP. The lower group sat mid zone 2, around 65 to 70 percent of CP. Both are endurance riding. One just sits at the ceiling. These are rough translations, the relationship between thresholds and CP varies between riders, and remember this was done in runners.

Then they measured everything. Performance, neuromuscular markers, how hard the training felt, and how well the athletes recovered.

Here is the part worth sitting with. Both groups improved, and they improved by the same amount. Sitting at the top of the zone gave no extra performance gain over sitting lower in it. There was no magic at the upper end. But the group that trained higher in the zone paid more for the same result. Their perceived effort was higher, their training felt more monotonous, and their recovery scores were worse across several weeks. Same adaptation, more cost.

For cyclists, that is a useful reframing, even though this was done in runners. Most of your aerobic work does not need to be pushed to the upper edge of the zone to count. The adaptations you are chasing, the aerobic base, the muscular endurance, the durability, do not live at one precise intensity. They respond to consistent, repeatable, well fuelled time in the domain. And the firmer you ride that work, the more it costs you in fatigue and recovery, without buying you more fitness.

This is exactly where durability is won or lost. Durable riders are not the ones who nailed the perfect zone 2 number. They are the ones who did the work often enough, fuelled it properly, and kept the cost low enough that they could back it up day after day. Riding the endurance zone too hard is one of the quietest ways serious cyclists undermine themselves. It feels productive. It just leaves you more tired for no extra return.

## What to do with this

*If you race or ride hard in groups:* Stop policing the lower zones so tightly, and stop drifting them upward. Protect your intensity for the days that are meant to be hard. Let your endurance rides sit comfortably inside the zone rather than at the top of it. The goal of an easy ride is to leave you ready to train well tomorrow.

*If you ride big hours, gran fondos and long gravel:* You already have the volume. The win is keeping it genuinely aerobic. Resist the constant creep up into the grey zone on long rides. It raises the cost, hurts your recovery, and does not make you fitter. Fuel it properly and keep it honest.

*If your training time is capped:* This is freeing. You do not need to nail a perfect number, and you do not need to ride the top of the zone to make it worthwhile. Consistent, repeatable, fuelled work across a sensible range still drives the adaptation. Spend your attention on showing up and executing, not on chasing a decimal point.

*Guimaraes MP, Foresti YF, Papoti M, de Azevedo PHSM. Neuromuscular Adaptations, Performance, and Monitoring of Endurance Training Within Moderate Domain Intensities. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2026.*

## On my mind: Why I changed my mind on the call

A new athlete came on board this week. His goal is to qualify for the UCI Gran Fondo World Championships. He is experienced, consistent, and he knows how to ride. He has mates who have already qualified, and he knows that when he is fit, he is faster than them.

I went into our first call thinking a 12-week plan might be the right path for him. He has the experience and the consistency. Give him good structure and let him execute. That was my instinct.

But the deeper we got into the call, the more I changed my mind. What he actually needed was not just a plan. He needed to understand his own training. He wanted clear feedback, and part of the reason was very specific. There is a mate who constantly challenges him. Why are you doing this session? Why that one? He wanted to understand his own training well enough to answer that, to back himself, and to stop being talked out of work that was right for him.

That is when it clicked that coaching was the better fit, not a plan. A plan gives you structure. Coaching gives you the loop. Structure puts something on the calendar that you might not have chosen for yourself. Accountability keeps you doing it. Feedback tells you whether it is working and where to sharpen. Then strategy changes the plan based on what that feedback shows. Plan, do, review, adjust, and round again, all pointed at the goal.

That loop is the difference between training and being coached. He does not lack fitness or discipline. He lacks the loop. That is what we are building.

Damian