What's Better: six or two threes?

Wormishere1

Hi,

I have been wondering what, if any difference, there would be between splitting riding hours over a week.

i.e. four one hour rides a week vs. a three hour ride and a one hour ride a week.

What would be the effect one fitness?

imposter2.0

Inevitably, it will depend on what you are trying to achieve.

Wormishere1

It wasn't a specific question about my training, just more of a general question really.

imposter2.0

Wormishere1 wrote:

It wasn't a specific question about my training, just more of a general question really.

There isn't a 'general' answer though - one isn't necessarily 'better' than the other. As I said, it all depends on what you want to achieve. If the events you are training for involve longer rides, then a three hour ride would be a useful thing to incorporate. Training for shorter events like evening 10s, then four shorter rides might make more sense. The other issue to consider is the intensity of the rides themselves.

All I would add is that 4 hours per week is not a whole lot of riding, in any case.

drlodge

All things being equal, at those distances I would say 2 rides is better than 1. YMMV.

BrandonA

It really depends on your goals and how you ride.

If you ride a leisurely speed then I think you'd be better doing longer rides. If you like pushing yourself to the max then I'd suggest more shorter rides.

Personally, I like to get out for two hours (40 miles) per ride mid-week and longer at the weekend (50-60 currently - looking for upto 100 over next few months).

Wormishere1

OK. I meant if one had X hours per week to ride (3, 10, 50, whatever), what would be the effect on fitness riding these hours in smaller chunks opposed to fewer longer rides.

What benefit would shorter intense rides have and what benefit would longer more steady rides have? Obviously the shorter rides would not build endurance, but would they not be more beneficial to overall fitness rather than longer steady slogs (and from what I have read on here fitness makes you faster not muscles).

Sorry if I am being vague or not as targeted as some of the questions posted on here.

imposter2.0

Wormishere1 wrote:

OK. I meant if one had X hours per week to ride (3, 10, 50, whatever), what would be the effect on fitness riding these hours in smaller chunks opposed to fewer longer rides.

What benefit would shorter intense rides have and what benefit would longer more steady rides have? Obviously the shorter rides would not build endurance, but would they not be more beneficial to overall fitness rather than longer steady slogs (and from what I have read on here fitness makes you faster not muscles).

Sorry if I am being vague or not as targeted as some of the questions posted on here.

Not sure if you're read the replies above or not. Riding shorter, higher-intensity rides will build your ability to ride at higher intensities for shorter periods. Riding longer, slower rides will improve your ability to ride at lower intensities for longer periods. Most people do a combination of both, as a way of building both intensity and endurance in fairly equal measure.

What you actually need to do is entirely down to what you want to achieve from your riding.

marcusjb

^ that is about all there is to it. You become better trained to do the thing you do during training.

For the vast majority of us leisure cyclists, we need a bit of both intensity and endurance to make cycling more enjoyable. Don't over complicate it though unless your goal is something competitive. Just enjoy riding your bike.

thomasmorris

What about the same weekly duration, at the same intensity, but split over more rides.

I'm doing base currently (Z2) and have some long endurance target next year (12-20hour) as well as road racing.

Am I better doing my 1hr15 commute there and back each day, or driving one way, but extending the route to take 2hr30? (both would show up the same in terms of TSS / recovery).

I would spend the same time in Z2 with both, but splitting the time over more rides fits better (if I cycle commute both ways I can get my 2.5 hours in and be home 45 minutes earlier). Or do the adaptations I aiming to get from steady Z2 only occur after a certain single duration (e.g. over 2, 3 or 4 hours?).

DeVlaeminck

I think there is something about the body using different substrates for fuel after certain durations - moving away from glycogen and towards fat or something along those lines. The question is whether that makes for more efficient training - in other words does the body become more efficient at utilising fat through training over longer durations.

There is also the question of endurance or fatigue resistance. I doubt many people could run a marathon having only ever run up to 4 miles previously - however there are plenty of people who have run marathons off 28 miles a week which is the equivalent of running 4 miles each day. I don't claim expertise but isn't there something to do with neuro-muscular endurance which presumably explains part of this - in other words it's not all about the amount of time you spend at certain zones but also at least in part about spending some of that time in extended blocks not just split up piecemeal throughout the week.

Again if any of this is bullshit I'm happy to have it explained why.

themogulman

If your training for endurance then 1 4 hour ride.

If your training at higher end interval work then 2 2 hours with a nap in between.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Wormishere1 wrote:

Hi,

I have been wondering what, if any difference, there would be between splitting riding hours over a week.

i.e. four one hour rides a week vs. a three hour ride and a one hour ride a week.

What would be the effect one fitness?

Frequency does have an important place in training as there is plenty of research showing good gains from more frequent higher intensity efforts, which provide similar if not better results than longer duration training. If you pack riding hours into one or two rides, then the opportunity to ride harder is diminished as you are dealing with higher acute fatigue levels as the ride progresses.

If I only had 4 hours/week and improving fitness was the primary goal, then I'd do a split of either
4 days with 1.25hrs / 1hr / 1hr / 45-min or
5 days with 1hr / 1hr / 45-min / 45-min / 30-min sessions.

Once I was riding OK, I'd be upping the intensity with a variety of efforts.

After a 6-8 weeks, you'll probably need to ride more hours to gain further benefit, or do some very high intensity work, which is difficult to sustain for more than a handful of weeks at a time.

ai_1

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Wormishere1 wrote:

Hi,

I have been wondering what, if any difference, there would be between splitting riding hours over a week.

i.e. four one hour rides a week vs. a three hour ride and a one hour ride a week.

What would be the effect one fitness?

Frequency does have an important place in training as there is plenty of research showing good gains from more frequent higher intensity efforts, which provide similar if not better results than longer duration training. If you pack riding hours into one or two rides, then the opportunity to ride harder is diminished as you are dealing with higher acute fatigue levels as the ride progresses.

If I only had 4 hours/week and improving fitness was the primary goal, then I'd do a split of either
4 days with 1.25hrs / 1hr / 1hr / 45-min or
5 days with 1hr / 1hr / 45-min / 45-min / 30-min sessions.

Once I was riding OK, I'd be upping the intensity with a variety of efforts.

After a 6-8 weeks, you'll probably need to ride more hours to gain further benefit, or do some very high intensity work, which is difficult to sustain for more than a handful of weeks at a time.

There is a practical consideration that might be worth mentioning. It's not specific to the OP but a general point about time usage for cycling.
If I go for a 1hr ride it requires a lot more than a 1hr block of time. I need to get changed and get the bike out which seems like it should take 5-10 minutes but somehow always takes much longer (especially in winter when more gear is needed). Then when I get back I may stretch a bit if it was a high intensity ride and I'll be needing a shower so say another 20-30mins. So a 1hr ride can require a chunk of time anywhere from 1.5-2hrs all in.
Therefore 4hrs riding a week split into 4 rides = 6-8hrs
But 4hrs riding a week as a single ride = 4.5-5hrs
If it's really a case of maximising total time available then more frequent rides could end up getting very short!

thomasmorris

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Wormishere1 wrote:

Hi,

I have been wondering what, if any difference, there would be between splitting riding hours over a week.

i.e. four one hour rides a week vs. a three hour ride and a one hour ride a week.

What would be the effect one fitness?

Frequency does have an important place in training as there is plenty of research showing good gains from more frequent higher intensity efforts, which provide similar if not better results than longer duration training. If you pack riding hours into one or two rides, then the opportunity to ride harder is diminished as you are dealing with higher acute fatigue levels as the ride progresses.

If I only had 4 hours/week and improving fitness was the primary goal, then I'd do a split of either
4 days with 1.25hrs / 1hr / 1hr / 45-min or
5 days with 1hr / 1hr / 45-min / 45-min / 30-min sessions.

Once I was riding OK, I'd be upping the intensity with a variety of efforts.

After a 6-8 weeks, you'll probably need to ride more hours to gain further benefit, or do some very high intensity work, which is difficult to sustain for more than a handful of weeks at a time.

Sorry, I kind of jumped in to this thread a couple of post up from yours. I know you're answering the original post, and I get what you're saying, if you can only fit X amount of hours in, then you're better doing shorter higher intensity. However, I would appreciate your thoughts on my situation quoted from up thread, below.

thomasmorris wrote:

What about the same weekly duration, at the same intensity, but split over more rides.

I'm doing base currently (Z2) and have some long endurance target next year (12-20hour) as well as road racing.

Am I better doing my 1hr15 commute there and back each day, or driving one way, but extending the route to take 2hr30? (both would show up the same in terms of TSS / recovery).

I would spend the same time in Z2 with both, but splitting the time over more rides fits better (if I cycle commute both ways I can get my 2.5 hours in and be home 45 minutes earlier). Or do the adaptations I aiming to get from steady Z2 only occur after a certain single duration (e.g. over 2, 3 or 4 hours?).

Alex_Simmons/RST

Ai_1 wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Wormishere1 wrote:

Hi,

I have been wondering what, if any difference, there would be between splitting riding hours over a week.

i.e. four one hour rides a week vs. a three hour ride and a one hour ride a week.

What would be the effect one fitness?

Frequency does have an important place in training as there is plenty of research showing good gains from more frequent higher intensity efforts, which provide similar if not better results than longer duration training. If you pack riding hours into one or two rides, then the opportunity to ride harder is diminished as you are dealing with higher acute fatigue levels as the ride progresses.

If I only had 4 hours/week and improving fitness was the primary goal, then I'd do a split of either
4 days with 1.25hrs / 1hr / 1hr / 45-min or
5 days with 1hr / 1hr / 45-min / 45-min / 30-min sessions.

Once I was riding OK, I'd be upping the intensity with a variety of efforts.

After a 6-8 weeks, you'll probably need to ride more hours to gain further benefit, or do some very high intensity work, which is difficult to sustain for more than a handful of weeks at a time.

There is a practical consideration that might be worth mentioning. It's not specific to the OP but a general point about time usage for cycling.
If I go for a 1hr ride it requires a lot more than a 1hr block of time. I need to get changed and get the bike out which seems like it should take 5-10 minutes but somehow always takes much longer (especially in winter when more gear is needed). Then when I get back I may stretch a bit if it was a high intensity ride and I'll be needing a shower so say another 20-30mins. So a 1hr ride can require a chunk of time anywhere from 1.5-2hrs all in.
Therefore 4hrs riding a week split into 4 rides = 6-8hrs
But 4hrs riding a week as a single ride = 4.5-5hrs
If it's really a case of maximising total time available then more frequent rides could end up getting very short!

If you are time poor, then you need to be better organised so that you can maximise time on the bike, and minimise time pfaffing about. Have kit ready laid out before you go to bed so it's quick to get ready and go. You will be showering anyway I'd have thought, so I don't see what difference that makes. You can also use an indoor trainer for some rides which minimises much of what you mention.

Alex_Simmons/RST

thomasmorris wrote:

Sorry, I kind of jumped in to this thread a couple of post up from yours. I know you're answering the original post, and I get what you're saying, if you can only fit X amount of hours in, then you're better doing shorter higher intensity. However, I would appreciate your thoughts on my situation quoted from up thread, below.

thomasmorris wrote:

What about the same weekly duration, at the same intensity, but split over more rides.

I'm doing base currently (Z2) and have some long endurance target next year (12-20hour) as well as road racing.

Am I better doing my 1hr15 commute there and back each day, or driving one way, but extending the route to take 2hr30? (both would show up the same in terms of TSS / recovery).

I would spend the same time in Z2 with both, but splitting the time over more rides fits better (if I cycle commute both ways I can get my 2.5 hours in and be home 45 minutes earlier). Or do the adaptations I aiming to get from steady Z2 only occur after a certain single duration (e.g. over 2, 3 or 4 hours?).

There's no right answer.

Doing the longer ride once per day is better IMO. Gives your body a more time to recover and rebuild before the next session. Commutes can be a training curse as they can build unnecessary fatigue and impact on the quality of other training.

But much depends on the nature of the commute (many are stop/start affairs), how much you are doing and what your training and fitness history is. Most riders I've worked with that had a commute scenario went better when we dialled back or removed their second ride. But equally, many of us have done plenty of two a day workouts, e.g. morning ride, then track racing in the evening and hard ride the next morning and race in the afternoon.

bahzob

As per the comments above there really is no best answer.

For this and most other questions concerning training the single most important precursor question is "what am I training for".

If you don't have a clear answer to this then the simplest answer is just do whatever you like doing the most or, at this time of year, just let the weather decide. If you enjoy what you are doing in the long term you will maintain and improve your fitness more than if you follow a rigid plan just because you have read somewhere it's the "best" thing to do.

All this being said if your interest is in getting better then I would recommend the "Time Crunched Cyclist". It gives specific advice and guidelines to training if you only have few hours per week. It includes a way to measure your fitness to judge progress and advice on including commuting.