Zone 2 Training for Hybrid Performance and HYROX-Relevant Outcomes

By Ayda Page

March 2026 22 minutes read

Zone 2 is best treated as a physiological domain rather than a fixed heart-rate (HR) number: it is the highest intensity that remains immediately below the first lactate or ventilatory threshold (often denoted LT1/VT1), where lactate and ventilation remain (relatively) stable and sustainable for long durations. [1]

Across modern practice, the term is used inconsistently because “Zone 2” can mean different things depending on whether an athlete/coach uses a 3-zone (threshold-domain) model or a 5–6-zone model. This is not a semantic problem; mislabeling changes the training stimulus and the expected adaptations. [2]

Biomarker expectations for Zone 2 align with classic endurance adaptations—improved mitochondrial content/oxidative capacity, improved capillarization and muscle oxygen extraction, improved fat oxidation at submaximal workloads, lower HR or lactate at a given external workload, and improved “durability” (reduced performance drop-off across prolonged work). [3]

However, key modern syntheses caution that these adaptations are not unique to Zone 2; nearby intensities can produce overlapping adaptations, and high-intensity work can be more time-efficient for some outcomes (especially VO₂max) depending on dose and athlete level. [4]

For HYROX-relevant performance, the best available peer-reviewed evidence remains early but informative. A simulated HYROX event (~86.5 min median) showed that running dominated total time (~51 min running vs ~33 min stations) and faster completion correlated strongly with higher VO₂max and greater endurance training volume, while strength proxy measures did not correlate in that small sample. [5]

Therefore, Zone 2’s most defensible HYROX pathway is indirect: building an aerobic base that improves running efficiency, enables more total training, and improves recovery between high-intensity stations—while recognizing bahwa race execution occurs largely at “hard/very hard” intensities and demands additional threshold/VO₂ and strength-endurance work. [6]

The primary research gaps are: (i) HYROX-specific longitudinal interventions isolating Zone 2 dose, (ii) validated hybrid performance models linking aerobic metrics to station-specific outcomes, (iii) standardized intensity prescription (threshold-based rather than %HRmax), and (iv) concurrent-training sequencing studies tailored to HYROX constraints. [7]

Defining Zone 2 and operationalizing it in the field

Physiological definition anchored to thresholds

A high-consensus definition from an expert panel is: Zone 2 should preferably be performed immediately below LT1/VT1 and can be implemented via continuous, variable, or interval-type sessions (with continuous long sessions common in practice). [1]

Why “below LT1/VT1” matters: lactate threshold constructs have multiple competing definitions, with ongoing debate about physiological meaning and test validity; therefore, “Zone 2” should reference a specific boundary concept (LT1/VT1) rather than “moderate” as a generic label. [8]

Even within threshold-based approaches, lactate and ventilatory thresholds can show meaningful disagreement, so they should not automatically be used interchangeably. [9]

Why Zone 2 numbers vary so much

Recent lab data in trained cyclists demonstrate that common Zone 2 markers (e.g., fixed %HRmax or fixed lactate values) have substantial intra- and interindividual variability (coefficients of variation ~6–29% across markers). VT1 and maximal fat oxidation (Fatmax) align better than fixed %HRmax or fixed lactate thresholds, supporting individualized prescriptions when precision matters. [10]

A key implication is that fixed HR rules are practical but may deliver incorrectly targeted metabolic strain for a non-trivial fraction of athletes. [11]

Mapping Zone 2 to HR, power, pace, and running power

The following table is a practical synthesis of how Zone 2 is commonly operationalized across modalities, while emphasizing that thresholds remain the academically preferred anchor.

Metric family	Best-practice anchor (academic)	Common field proxy	Key pitfalls (why proxy can fail)
HR	HR at/just below VT1 or LT1 from graded test [9]	%HRmax ranges (e.g., ~73–82% HRmax used in Norwegian elite endurance “Zone 2” definitions) [12]	HR drift during prolonged work; HR–workload nonlinearity; hydration/heat effects; large individual error when using fixed percentages [13]
Cycling power (watts)	Power at/just below VT1/LT1 (lab) or MLSS-associated subthreshold marker [14]	%FTP “endurance” ranges (often used in practice) with FTP derived from TT tests [15]	FTP may not equal MLSS / maximal metabolic steady state; TT-derived corrections vary by athlete and protocol [15]
Running pace	Pace at/just below VT1/LT1; alternatively pace at first turn-point in lactate/ventilation [16]	“Conversational” pace (Talk Test), stable breathing, low RPE [17]	Terrain/heat/wind change pace at same metabolic cost; pace alone can overshoot Zone 2 on hills/heat; injury-risk constraints with high running volume [18]
Running power	Power at/near VT1/LT1 or MLSS, device-specific [19]	Stryd-based power targets show strong relationships with oxygen consumption in submax running; can be used to stabilize intensity across grade [20]	Devices can underestimate absolute power; cross-device comparability is limited; model choice affects “critical power/speed” estimates [21]

A pragmatic “precision ladder” for Zone 2 intensity selection (coaching workflow)

Field monitoring that matches Zone 2 physiology

A robust field strategy is to treat Zone 2 as “steady-state until it isn’t.” Cardiovascular drift (rising HR with stable output) is a documented phenomenon in prolonged moderate exercise, influenced by thermoregulation and stroke-volume dynamics, and can push HR-based athletes above intended metabolic intensity late in sessions. [23]

Therefore, HR-only control is best interpreted alongside an external metric (power/pace/run power) and perceptual anchors (Talk Test/RPE). [24]

Biomarkers, adaptations, and what Zone 2 does (and doesn’t) uniquely explain

Lactate as a biomarker: useful, but not a single truth

Lactate thresholds are widely used to assess endurance capacity, but the literature documents persistent debate regarding threshold terminology, physiological interpretation, and the “validity” of specific threshold constructs. [25]

Empirically, lactate- and ventilatory-derived thresholds can be reliable in trained cyclists, with some lactate methods aligning statistically with ventilatory thresholds and MLSS-related markers—yet method-dependent disagreement (e.g., Dmax variability) remains. [26]

This supports two coaching implications: (1) lactate is valuable for individual calibration, and (2) the exact protocol/method must be standardized within an athlete over time to make trends meaningful. [27]

Mitochondrial markers and capillarization: what the large syntheses show

Endurance training’s hallmark adaptation is increased skeletal muscle oxidative capacity and mitochondrial content—historically demonstrated in foundational work associated with John O. Holloszy[28]’s research legacy. [29]

At the intervention-synthesis level, a large systematic review/meta-regression comparing continuous endurance training (ET), high-intensity training (HIT), and sprint interval training (SIT) reports:

Per training hour, SIT was ~2–4× more “efficient” than HIT/ET for increasing mitochondrial content, while ET showed slower but steady improvements over longer blocks. [30]
Capillaries per fiber increased similarly across ET/HIT/SIT after adjusting for exposure, but capillary density (capillaries per mm²) increased more after ET than HIT/SIT, plausibly because ET induced less fiber hypertrophy. [30]
Baseline fitness strongly moderated percentage improvements: lower initial fitness predicted greater gains in mitochondrial markers, capillarization, and VO₂max—central to elite vs beginner programming logic. [31]

In controlled 12-week endurance training at ~70% VO₂max, both young and older men increased citrate synthase activity and increased indices of capillarization substantially, illustrating that mitochondrial and angiogenic responses can occur with sustained subthreshold work. [32]

VO₂max relationship: Zone 2 supports it, but intensity and dose matter

In the above meta-regression, VO₂max increased across ET/HIT/SIT with broadly similar adjusted improvements, with a tendency favoring HIT; SIT had the largest increase per training hour. [30]

A separate meta-analysis on polarized intensity distribution indicates polarized training can be superior to other distributions for improving VO₂peak particularly in shorter interventions and highly trained athletes, suggesting that a “Zone 2 heavy” approach often works best when paired with enough high-intensity stimulus. [33]

Critically, an individualized domain-based trial reported that heavy/severe/extreme prescriptions increased VO₂max and thresholds after 6 weeks, whereas moderate-intensity domain training did not—highlighting that “moderate” (often conflated with Zone 2) is not guaranteed to improve VO₂max without sufficient dose or intensity structure. [34]

Substrate utilization and Fatmax: why Zone 2 is often associated with “fat oxidation”

Whole-body fat oxidation vs intensity is typically described as parabolic—rising from low to moderate intensities and falling at high intensities due to limits on fatty-acid delivery and mitochondrial uptake dynamics; Fatmax protocols were developed to quantify the intensity of maximal fat oxidation. [35]

Modern Zone 2 variability data show Fatmax often aligns closely with VT1 in trained cyclists, reinforcing why Zone 2 is frequently framed as a “high-fat-oxidation” domain, though individual variability remains substantial. [36]

Comparative adaptations table: what to expect by intensity emphasis (qualitative synthesis)

The table below intentionally separates what is strongly supported (large syntheses) from what is plausible but less uniquely attributable (expert expectations and mechanistic inference).

Training emphasis	Typical zone anchor	Most supported adaptations	High-level caveats
Zone 2 / sub-LT1 volume	Below LT1/VT1 [37]	Improves mitochondrial markers and capillarization, especially in untrained–moderately trained; meaningful improvements in oxidative enzymes and capillary indices documented in steady subthreshold training [38]	Not uniquely superior; may be inefficient per hour for VO₂max vs intervals; precision with %HRmax is limited [39]
Threshold / heavy-domain work	Between LT1–LT2 as “heavy” domain	Improves thresholds and sustained performance markers; often used in elite practice as controlled intervals [40]	Higher fatigue cost; in hybrid sports must be balanced with strength and injury-risk constraints [41]
VO₂max intervals / severe domain	Near VO₂max (above LT2)	Efficient improvements in VO₂max and thresholds in many RCTs/syntheses; key part of polarized models [42]	Requires careful recovery; can disrupt concurrent strength progress if overdone or poorly sequenced [43]
Sprint interval / extreme domain	Short maximal repeats	Very time-efficient mitochondrial and VO₂max improvements per hour in some syntheses [30]	High neuromuscular stress; may be less compatible with high technical station work when accumulated fatigue is present [44]

Historical context and why Zone 2 is “new again”

The key point for an academic review is that Zone 2 is not new as a concept; what is newer is (i) the branding and (ii) the convergence of threshold-domain models, wearable metrics, and public-facing discourse.

Timeline of conceptual milestones influencing “Zone 2” practice

[45]

Why the recent surge matters scientifically

A recent expert-panel commentary explicitly notes Zone 2 is receiving much attention and being widely discussed in training circles, while also emphasizing that lack of definitional consensus creates heterogeneous prescriptions and potentially heterogeneous adaptations. [1]

Concurrently, training intensity distribution theory has expanded into detailed comparisons of polarized, pyramidal, threshold, and multi-zone systems, providing a more formal backdrop for why “lots of low intensity” remains common in elite endurance development. [46]

In parallel, hybrid competition formats have begun to attract scientific characterization and internal education efforts (e.g., HYROX announcing an advisory council and report), increasing demand for “endurance science translation” into mixed-modality training decisions. [47]

Critiques and contexts where Zone 2 may be less appropriate

Zone 2 is often presented as universally beneficial, but the research and best-practice descriptions suggest a conditional view is more defensible.

The “low-intensity paradox” and non-uniqueness of adaptations

A contemporary perspective explicitly frames a paradox: elite endurance athletes perform a large fraction of training at low intensity even though acute low-intensity sessions do not strongly disrupt homeostasis in highly trained athletes; multiple hypotheses are offered, including volume-without-stress and psychological/consistency factors, and even the possibility that some low-intensity volume could be replaceable. [48]

Consistent with that, the Zone 2 expert-panel commentary states that expected adaptations are likely not unique to Zone 2 and could also be induced with sessions slightly above or below. [37]

Time-constrained athletes: opportunity cost

Large training-response syntheses indicate higher-intensity protocols can be more time-efficient for mitochondrial adaptations and VO₂max improvements per training hour. [30]

Moreover, domain-based RCT evidence suggests moderate-intensity training may fail to increase VO₂max and thresholds over 6 weeks, whereas heavy/severe/extreme prescriptions succeed, emphasizing that “more intense (properly dosed)” can be necessary for some athletes and time horizons. [34]

Implication: Zone 2 is rarely best framed as a stand-alone solution when performance goals are high and training time is limited; it is better framed as the infrastructure that enables either (a) more total work or (b) better quality high-intensity work. [49]

Runners: mechanical load constraints and injury risk interactions

For runners, Zone 2 volume is mechanically expensive. Evidence syntheses on running-related injuries show that training characteristics (volume/intensity changes) relate to injury occurrence, supporting cautious progression and the need to manage acute spikes. [50]

A trial comparing progression in running intensity versus volume illustrates that injury incidence questions are empirical (not purely intuitive), and injury risk can be shaped by how training stress is distributed. [51]

HYROX-specific evidence (review discussion within the HYROX simulation paper) also flags that because a large amount of training must be dedicated to running, “excessive running mileage” warrants caution and might be complemented by rowing/ski-based endurance modalities for load management. [52]

Cyclists: Zone 2 is easy to accumulate, but precision problems remain

Cycling’s lower musculoskeletal impact makes high Zone 2 volume feasible; yet Zone 2 targeting by fixed %HRmax can be metabolically imprecise, and FTP-based watt prescriptions have documented validity limitations relative to MLSS/metabolic steady state. [53]

Thus, cyclists often benefit from Zone 2 volume, but advanced coaching should still treat “watts for Zone 2” as athlete- and protocol-specific, not as a universal %FTP rule. [54]

HYROX-specific demands: why “Zone 2 only” is structurally mismatched

HYROX competition alternates repeated 1 km runs with functional stations; simulated data show high HR and high lactate values (median BLmax ~8.5 mmol/L), indicating substantial anaerobic contribution and sustained high internal load. [55]

Accordingly, even the authors of the simulation study recommend including moderate-intensity endurance plus HIIT forms to improve aerobic and anaerobic capacity. [56]

Separately, a descriptive athlete-profile study emphasizes HYROX’s standardized structure and the need to integrate endurance, strength, and recovery strategies; it also highlights that current empirical characterization is limited—an important caution against overconfident Zone 2 prescriptions. [57]

Effects on HYROX finish time: mechanisms, modeling, and current evidence

What the best current study implies (and what it cannot yet prove)

In a simulated HYROX competition:

Total completion time was ~86.5 min (median), with running time ~51.2 min and station time ~32.8 min, i.e., running dominated total time. [5]
Faster overall completion correlated with higher VO₂max and greater endurance training volume (and lower body fat percentage). [5]
Correlations appeared for runs but not stations in that sample, suggesting aerobic capacity primarily drives the running component (and therefore overall time) in that setting. [5]

These are correlational data in a small cohort, so they do not establish that Zone 2 causes faster HYROX times; however, they provide a credible mechanism: improving aerobic capacity/endurance training volume should disproportionately benefit the portion of the event that occupies the most time. [5]

Mechanistic pathways by which Zone 2 plausibly improves HYROX outcomes

A defensible HYROX mechanism model for Zone 2 is:

Peripheral aerobic adaptations (mitochondrial capacity, capillarization) reduce oxygen cost and metabolic disturbance at submaximal running speeds. [38]
Improved submaximal efficiency enables more consistent pacing across the 8 run segments and potentially improves recovery kinetics between stations (by reducing relative intensity of the runs). [58]
Improved aerobic base supports higher total training load while mitigating cumulative stress, a proposed rationale for large low-intensity volumes in endurance athletes. [59]
In concurrent training contexts, careful organization is required to avoid blunting strength/power adaptations—critical for sled work and wall balls—so Zone 2 must be sequenced intelligently. [60]

A HYROX finish-time sensitivity model (conceptual but coach-useful)

A simple decomposition:

T_total ≈ T_runs + T_stations + T_transitions
If running is ~60% of total time (51.2 / 86.5), then a 1% improvement in aggregate run time yields ~0.6% improvement in total time (holding stations constant). [5]

This allows evidence-based prioritization: small improvements in running durability/pace can move overall result meaningfully because runs occupy the largest time block. [61]

Relating aerobic determinants to running segments (evidence-based analogy)

A classic endurance-performance framework models performance as interaction of VO₂max, lactate threshold fraction, and economy. [62]

While developed for running events, the logic transfers to the HYROX running segments: Zone 2 mainly targets economy and subthreshold durability (and indirectly VO₂max via volume and complementary intensity), which should improve the pace that can be sustained repeatedly under fatigue. [63]

Case study “archetype”: the Brandt simulated HYROX cohort as an applied case

The Brandt et al. simulated HYROX study is currently the closest thing to a peer-reviewed HYROX-specific physiological case study suitable for an academic review because it reports time distribution, HR, lactate, and correlates with VO₂max and training volume. [5]

Its main value for Zone 2 programming is not that Zone 2 was tested, but that it quantifies the aerobic relevance and indicates where aerobic benefits are likely to translate (primarily running, secondarily recovery between stations). [5]

HYROX causal evidence status (clear statement)

At present, there is no high-quality longitudinal intervention evidence directly testing different Zone 2 doses (or Zone 2 vs alternatives) on HYROX race outcomes in trained, competitive HYROX athletes; available studies are primarily descriptive and correlational, and broader HIFT monitoring papers emphasize this gap. [64]

Practical programming recommendations for high-level HYROX coaching

Periodization logic: Zone 2 as “volume infrastructure” not a race-intensity proxy

Elite endurance-coach case-study research from Norway indicates that ~80–90% of endurance training is typically performed below LT1/VT1, with the remainder at higher intensities, and that interval sessions are often more voluminous and controlled than typical “exhaustive HIIT” prescriptions. [65]

Within that framework, “Zone 2” (as used in some 6-zone systems) corresponds to low-intensity training around ~73–82% HRmax and ~1.5–2.5 mmol/L lactate. [66]

A HYROX-specific translation of that structure is:

Use Zone 2 to raise the ceiling for weekly training volume and running frequency while protecting high-quality station sessions and high-intensity endurance sessions. [67]
Add event-relevant intensity (threshold/severe work) to match competition internal load (hard/very hard HR distribution and high lactate). [68]

Session archetypes worth comparing (Zone 2 implementations and why you’d pick each)

Zone 2 session type	Example prescription	Primary use-case	Monitoring notes
Long continuous	60–120+ min steady below VT1/LT1	Aerobic base + durability; low neuromuscular cost	Watch HR drift; if HR climbs while output constant, cap HR or reduce output [69]
Split continuous	2 × 40–60 min (same day)	Increase volume without one long mechanical exposure (useful in runners/HYROX)	Useful to manage injury risk and integrate with strength blocks [70]
Zone 2 intervals (low-intensity intervals)	3–5 × 10–20 min below VT1 w/ short easy recoveries	Technique/pacing control; reduces monotony; keeps lactate controlled	Often easier to “stay honest” than 90 min steady when terrain varies [71]
Cross-training Zone 2	SkiErg/RowErg/cycle/elliptical below VT1	Maintain aerobic dose while reducing running impact	Supported as a strategy to manage running mileage constraints for HYROX-style prep [72]

Elite vs beginner: expected differences and programming implications

The evidence base strongly supports that baseline fitness moderates adaptation magnitude: lower initial fitness yields larger percentage gains in mitochondrial markers, capillarization, and VO₂max. [31]

Similarly, low-intensity training interventions in working-age untrained adults produce rapid improvements, and a recent meta-analysis emphasizes that many studies fail to standardize intensity via thresholds—meaning new athletes may effectively drift into higher domains unintentionally. [73]

Athlete level	What Zone 2 most reliably does	What it may not do alone	Programming emphasis for HYROX
Beginner / low aerobic base	Large improvements in aerobic fitness markers and tolerance for training; fast early gains typical [74]	Not sufficient preparation for HYROX station fatigue and high lactate demands	Build consistency: 2–4 Zone 2 sessions/wk + 2 strength sessions + 1 mixed “skill/engine” day; restrict maximal work until durable [75]
Elite / world-class hybrid	Supports very high training volume and keeps high-intensity/strength sessions high-quality; may contribute to durability [76]	Time-efficient VO₂max gains or threshold shifts may require heavy/severe/extreme exposures and/or polarized structure [77]	Use Zone 2 to “buy” high-quality race-specific work: threshold intervals, station-interval combinations, and pacing simulations; manage interference with strength [78]

Monitoring recommendations: HR, power, pace, run power

Prefer individualized threshold anchors when possible. Fixed %HRmax can yield heterogeneous metabolic responses, so VT1/Fatmax-based prescriptions are more precise. [11]
Use dual-metric monitoring. Combine HR with power/pace/run power because HR drift is expected in prolonged work. [79]
Use Talk Test for scalable field control. Talk Test stages map meaningfully to ventilatory threshold boundaries for many athletes and are usable when lab/lactate tools are unavailable. [80]
Running power is useful but device-dependent. Stryd-derived power correlates with oxygen consumption and can improve intensity control, though absolute values can be underestimated and model choice affects derived parameters. [20]
Power-based cycling zones: treat FTP carefully. FTP tests may not represent maximal metabolic steady state uniformly; validity concerns are documented, so calibrate with lactate/threshold testing where possible. [15]

Concurrent training guidance for HYROX: managing the interference problem

The interference effect literature indicates endurance training frequency/duration can relate to reduced strength/hypertrophy outcomes in some contexts, and more recent meta-analyses refine that interference may be more apparent for power than maximal strength or VO₂max, with sex- and status-related nuances. [43]

Applied implication for HYROX:

Use Zone 2 preferentially on days where you still want high-quality strength (lower neuromuscular disruption than repeated severe intervals), but avoid placing long Zone 2 immediately before key lower-body strength/power sessions when possible. [81]
When higher-intensity endurance work is needed, keep it controlled, consistent with elite-coach descriptions of interval execution, rather than maximal-to-failure, to preserve strength skill and station technique quality. [82]

Research gaps and priority future studies (review-ready)

For a comprehensive academic review article, the research agenda can be stated with explicit study designs:

HYROX-specific longitudinal RCTs comparing Zone 2 dose (e.g., low vs high Zone 2 volume) while holding high-intensity and strength constant; primary endpoint = official race time and split times (runs vs stations). [83]
Mechanistic HYROX studies measuring VT1/LT1, running economy, and durability metrics before/after training blocks, to link Zone 2-induced peripheral adaptations to mid-to-late race pacing collapse. [84]
Standardized intensity prescription methodology in “Zone 2” trials: threshold-based rather than %HRmax; recent low-intensity intervention syntheses show this is rarely implemented even in health-focused studies. [73]
Concurrent training sequencing studies optimized for hybrid sports (run + erg + sled + high-rep wall ball), assessing both strength-endurance and aerobic outcomes, with sex- and training-status stratification. [85]
Validation of field metrics (running power, HRV, lactate sensors) specifically in hybrid-event conditions where fatigue and modality switching alter physiological relationships. [86]

References:

Sebastian Sitko[87] et al. (2025). What Is “Zone 2 Training”?: Experts’ Viewpoint on Definition, Training Methods, and Expected Adaptations. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance[88]. DOI: 10.1123/ijspp.2024-0303. PMID: 40010355. [89]
Benedikt Meixner[90] et al. (2025). Zone 2 Intensity: A Critical Comparison of Individual Variability in Different Submaximal Exercise Intensity Boundaries. Translational Sports Medicine[91]. PMID: 40225831. [10]
Oliver Faude[92] et al. (2009). Lactate threshold concepts: how valid are they? Sports Medicine[93]. DOI: 10.2165/00007256-200939060-00003. PMID: 19453206. [25]
Peter Hofmann[94] & Gerhard Tschakert[95] (2011). Special Needs to Prescribe Exercise Intensity for Scientific Studies. Cardiology Research and Practice[96]. DOI: 10.4061/2011/209302. PMID: 21197479. [97]
Stephen Seiler[98] (2010). What is best practice for training intensity and duration distribution in endurance athletes? (Review). DOI: 10.1123/ijspp.5.3.276. [99]
Thomas Stöggl[100] & Billy Sperlich[101] (2014). Polarized training has greater impact on key endurance variables than threshold, high intensity, or high volume training. Frontiers in Physiology[102]. [103]
Moisés A. Silva Oliveira[104] et al. (2024). Comparison of Polarized Versus Other Types of Endurance Training Intensity Distribution on Athletes’ Endurance Performance: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis. Sports Medicine. DOI: 10.1007/s40279-024-02034-z. [33]
K. S. Mølmen[105] et al. (2024). Effects of Exercise Training on Mitochondrial and Capillary Growth in Human Skeletal Muscle: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression. Sports Medicine[93]. DOI: 10.1007/s40279-024-02120-2. [106]
Jacob M. Wilson[107] et al. (2012). Concurrent training: a meta-analysis examining interference of aerobic and resistance exercises. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research[108]. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31823a3e2d. PMID: 22002517. [109]
Roelof O. Huiberts[110] et al. (2023). Concurrent Strength and Endurance Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Impact of Sex and Training Status. Sports Medicine - Open[111]. [112]
Tobias Brandt[113] et al. (2025). Acute physiological responses and performance determinants in Hyrox© – a running-focused high intensity functional fitness trend. Frontiers in Physiology[102]. [114]
Paula Villarroel López[115] et al. (2025). Characterization of the Profile of Hyrox© Athletes. Applied Sciences[116]. DOI: 10.3390/app152111693. [57]
Michael J. Joyner[117] (1991). Modeling: optimal marathon performance on the basis of physiological factors. Journal of Applied Physiology[118]. DOI: 10.1152/jappl.1991.70.2.683. PMID: 2022559. [62]
Edward F. Coyle[119] (2001). Cardiovascular drift during prolonged exercise: New perspectives. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews. PMID: 11337829. [120]
C. Ewing Garber[121] et al. (2011). Quantity and Quality of Exercise for Developing and Maintaining… (Position Stand). American College of Sports Medicine[122] / MSSE. DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318213fefb. PMID: 21694556. [123]
D. Ramskov[124] et al. (2018). Run Clever—injury occurrence across schedules focusing on intensity vs volume progression. BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine. [51]
A. Fredette[125] et al. (2021). The Association Between Running Injuries and Training Characteristics. Sports Medicine. [126]
Rasmus Østergaard Nielsen[127] et al. (2012). Training errors and running related injuries (systematic review). [128]
J. G. Pallarés[129] et al. (2016). Validity and Reliability of Ventilatory and Blood Lactate Thresholds in Well-Trained Cyclists. PLOS ONE[130]. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163389. [131]
José Ramón Lillo-Beviá[132] et al. (2022). Is the functional threshold power a valid metric to estimate the maximal lactate steady state in cyclists? J Strength Cond Res. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003403. [133]
S. Wong[134] et al. (2022). Functional Threshold Power is not a valid marker of the maximal metabolic steady state. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000003114. [135]
Hugo Imbach[136] et al. (2020). Validity of the Stryd Power Meter in Measuring Running Parameters at Submaximal Speeds. [137]
Rachel L. Aubry[138] et al. (2018). An Assessment of Running Power as a Training Metric for Elite and Recreational Runners. PubMed: 29912073. [139]
Santiago A. Ruiz-Alias[140] et al. (2024). Power or speed: Which metric is more accurate for modelling endurance running performance on track? DOI: 10.1002/ejsc.12210. PMID: 39401005. [141]
Cody R. van Rassel[142] et al. (2023). Is Running Power a Useful Metric? Quantifying Training Intensity and Aerobic Fitness Using Stryd Running Power Near the Maximal Lactate Steady State. Sensors. DOI: 10.3390/s23218729. [143]
C. Persinger[144] et al. (2004). Consistency of the Talk Test for Exercise Prescription (talk test vs VT). [80]
E. Tønnessen[145] et al. (2024). Training Session Models in Endurance Sports: A Norwegian Perspective on Best Practice Recommendations. [146]
Olli-Pekka Nuuttila[147] et al. (2026). Effects of Low-Intensity Endurance Training on Aerobic Fitness and Cardiometabolic Health in Working-Age Adults: Systematic Review & Meta-analysis. [148]