Currently, cycling training zones in TrainingPeaks are based solely on a percentage of FTP. While this works reasonably well for higher intensities, it is limiting for low-intensity training. I would like to propose the option to define training zones using two separate physiological anchor points:

LT2 / VT2 / FTP – for determining higher zones (e.g., Coggan Zones 3–6), where the current percentage model already works well.

LT1 / VT1 – for determining lower zones (especially Zone 2), where percentages relative to FTP often fail to reflect individual metabolic profiles.

For example, instead of defining Zone 2 as 56–76% of FTP, athletes could define it as 80–95% of LT1/VT1, which is more physiologically meaningful and better aligned with current endurance training science.

This dual-reference approach would:

• better reflect individual strengths and weaknesses,

• substantially improve the accuracy of low-intensity training prescriptions,

• simplify the creation of Zone 2 sessions especially after changes in LT1/VT1, and

align cycling and running training with modern *******- and ventilation-based methodologies.

A similar implementation for running zones (based on respective LT1/LT2 or VT1/VT2 markers) would also be highly beneficial.

Thank you for considering this enhancement to make TrainingPeaks even more precise and adaptable for athletes and coaches.