I will let the usual suspects chime in on the physiological aspects, but for a historical perspective on how cycling training changed this sort of approach, Hunger, the Sean Kelly Autobiography, talks about the changes in training philosophies that saw professionals increasingly moving to (relatively) shorter, higher intensity training while he was a pro.

---

***

There's that evil little word (relatively)

Many plans in trainerroad have one riding 4-5 days per week with many of those rides being in the 1 hour range. Not sure if that meets your criteria of “more often”

Is that just a general riding program or an Iron Man program?

It applies to pretty much all their plans. I did the standard Base program back in the fall and I think the longest ride was 2 hours.

---

Strava

It's like having a race car engine with a motorcycle sized gas tank.

I looked at someone's post the other day about the Barry P running thing. I'm not a runner, but have done a few 1/2's.

That program is still beyond the volume I ever did to run a 1/2 at about 10min a mile and not feel horrible.

It's a bit of a misconception this concept.

You CAN possible finish and do OK in a long distance event doing that kind of thing, cycling included. But you might not excel.

I finished mid-pack for Assault on Mt. Mitchell on my longest ride being 50mi and 6k feet. I'm a HIIT guy. I don't have time for 12 hour weeks or 5 hour weekend rides. I'd have finished upper 30% to 25% had I not flatted and had to work solo before the mountain for a few hours.

It's about equipping your toolbox for what you want to do.

Since I don't have much time: short road races, time trial, and cyclocross will be my thing. I can finish a fondo just fine. I just won't be in the pointy 10% of finishers.

Now, on the local 90 minute weekly group ride I can really put the hurting on the boys/girls. Someone is always about just as fast and sometimes faster. But on a given week I've got a 50/50 chance of dropping the entire group anytime there's a hill over 2min long. Like, put 30 seconds on the group over 3 minutes.

It's not the fastest group, but it's not slackers either. I keep up OK on race sim rides. I'd get dropped in the local P/1/2/3 ride after probably 90 minutes. I don't have the time to have enough bullets in the holster to last that long.

That's how it works kind of. The HIIT in cycling could get you to hang in the P/1/2/3 group ride for 30min, an hour, maybe even 90min. But you'll be out the back at some point for sure on less training time.

I think the specialty phases still end up having some long rides but that makes sense

One problem is that more often / less distance is competing with more often / more distance.

Over the decades, I have trained a number of different ways using a number of different theories. Everything from "ride lots" to "time crunched cyclist (HIIT)." Common sense says that, if I'm only racing races of an hour or less, I shouldn't need to train for durations of much more than that. Certainly not more than twice that duration. It seems to mesh with the "specificity principle." But my experience says that common sense is wrong in this case.

The year I trained for the Dirty Kanza 200, I put in over 10,000 miles . . . most of it in the top half of Zone 2. Cruising. Training my body to burn fat. I actually cut down on my high intensity intervals that year. And I was faster that year, with a much higher FTP, than I was in any other year. I've tried to get back to that same power level using higher intensity and less volume (7,500 miles) -- for three years -- and I'm still down over 10% from that year. [I haven't given up. I'm trying it again this year and expect to ride 8,000 miles on the year.]

At some point, every one of us has to decide how fast is fast enough. The frequency / duration equation has a direct impact on that. There's no escaping it . . . training volume matters.

Not sure about swimming, but I guess I always assumed one of the reasons for the run strategy of 'more often, less distance' was to help prevent injury yet still build up base miles.
With biking, we don't get the injuries from repetitive pounding like running..

Well, I am trying this out for cycling this year, not for any other reason than my work schedule is now crazy, and I can now only bike during the week (I set up a cycling desk with my trainer at work) I am doing 4x45-60 min sessions during my lunch break and prep periods, and 1, 2.5-3 hr session during the work week. Total volume max is going to be 7hr on the bike a week.

I am racing 70.3 this year and bumping down from fulls, so I figure that is plenty of volume relative to the distance. Doing mostly high intensity except for the longer ride.

I know the year I ran the best was when I ran 5-6x a week, short. So far this year, I am already hitting peak FTP numbers relative to my fitness. So, hopefully it pans out?

---

Insta: Trihennessy - Out Rival Racing Elite Team
- Roka - WattieInk - NormaTec - QUINTANA ROO - Profile Design - Pioneer - Gatorade Endurance

For me as an IM-focused athlete, I find that the longer distance rides are the best way for me to get my neck, back, shoulders and butt comfortable on a bike for the length of time that I'll be on the bike during a race. The more frequent/shorter rides don't seem to help me with this as much as longer rides.

Alot of good info! Thanks everyone.

FWIW, I tried a DIY bike desk at home twice when I was working from home for a week. I couldn't really get high enough endurance pace power to make it worth it. To get it out of "active recovery" and into my endurance pace I have to get over 160ish watts. At that point there's too much sweating, drinking fluids, and mess for the bike desk to work for me.

I assumed you meant you're doing the easier/long session on the bike desk.

I do power intervals or 2x20's or something like that on my lunch break. Really high I.F. stuff. About as tough a workout as a 60min crit or road race or a TT. People in the gym look at me like I'm some kind of freak rat in a diabolical experiment that's about to die. But it works.

Due to injuries I'm currently stuck in a 6 week rut of doing 4 or 5 rides a week of about 60 - 90 mins in upper zone 2 only. I've only got time for the short rides and i can't do the HIIT, VO2 max stuff as i need to keep my heart and breathing within limits otherwise it hurts (broken ribs).

I'm wondering if there is any benefit to this training at all, other than slowing the rate of decay of my fitness? Does Zone 2 have any useful effect even if it's not 6 hours?

First, and as others have mentioned, biking is different than both swimming and running. WRT swimming, frequency could be more beneficial because more of your total swim time is completed while fresh. If I swim 20k a week over 7 swims, most of those yards are going to be done with proper form. If I do 20k over 3 swims, most of those yards are going to be done when I am tired and my form has broken down. With running, the injury risk is simply higher the longer you run, so breaking your mileage into shorter runs can decrease that injury risk (at least in my non-expert opinion). Neither of these issues are a big concern for cycling so there is less of an issue with going out for long rides.

That does not mean that a high frequency cycling plan does not have its merits. With the BarryP plan, or with the transition to increasing run frequency, increasing frequency is simply used as a tool to increase overall volume. I think if you did the same with the bike, you would see similar results. Not because you are increasing frequency, but because you are increasing total volume. If you go from doing 2 one hour rides during the week and a four hour ride on the weekend to doing 5 one hour rides during the week and 2 two hour rides on the weekend then you are probably going to become a stronger cyclist. The big difference with cycling and a plan like BarryP is that many people are already cycling for 5-7 hours a week, where they are only running 2-3. I think the secret to the BarryP plan is not really the structure, or the increased frequency, but how it is used to increase overall volume.

The important thing to think about though is specificity. You can most certainly be in shape to ride an ironman with a max long ride of 3 hours, but good luck holding your aero position for a full distance and not having a sore back come race day. I am on the trainer 2 hours max at a time during the winter and come spring I go out for my first 3 hour ride and my body is just not use to holding that position for so long. It takes some time to build up to siting on a bike for 5-6 hours, even if the fitness is there.

I don't think you need to spend hours and hours to have both endurance and speed. I was FOP for Mt. Mitchell (exacttly 6 hours) and I usually don't do longer than 3 hour ride on the weekends. What I do instead is to focus on getting both high intensity rides and endurance rides. I 1-2 do super intense group rides at 5am in Charlotte, a solid 3 hour endurance ride with some fast-paced segments on Saturday, and either a high intensity or slower endurance ride sunday (in addition to a couple runs/swims in the week). The key IMO is to build endurance yourself, than ride with super strong riders in a group with surges.