Sorry but no. I know exactly where the forest and the trees are.
I asked a very straightforward question about duration of a training bout. With some examples to further shape why I was asking.
As is normal for inter webs, people started answering a different question than was asked and took the thread toward programming and what they would do.
This far, exactly two responses tried to address the actual question.
But regardless, thanks for participating.
How is that not asking for a training program? You specifically ask how best to make use of a week worth of hours and what pattern of workouts to use.
I asked an academic question which I then elaborated on as to why I was asking that question.
To use your lexicon, I defined both the tree and the forest. My hope was to initiate a productive and fun discussion with some value for the broader forum (and not just my singular interest).
This is a web forum, of course it’s going to wind around and take tangents. As long as its in good faith it’s all good.
What did you think of my suggestions or @Vpe s?
Exactly - which is why I asked the question. Am interested in the topic, have found little and was simply crowd sourcing to see if others, perhaps with far great knowledge of the literature, could add some depth.
If I learned something new, would certainly put it to use. Hopefully others would too.
Hi Joe - To my eye, they are fine example weeks for what you guys have decided to do within your constraints and goals. But single weeks aren’t a program and without seeing a larger program, or knowing where you guys are trying to go with your training, I can’t provide any useful input. And that’s a stretch because it assumes that even with the rest of the picture and knowing you guys as athletes, that I might have something useful to add. I won’t give myself that credit 
Because I’m nothing if not a glutton for punishment, and I know if any of us met for coffee or beers it would be a great conversation:
The reason(s) I’m interested in this stuff is about 10% practical and 90% theoretical. I’m pretty much past being a competitive cyclist and pinning on a number. Been there and done that and it was fun. Nowadays I ride for fun. Part of my fun is trying different training concepts and rides. That’s weird, but I’m weird and doing that entertains me.
That said, this is a forum dedicated to training. I’ve always been very interested in the best ways to train.
For practical reasons, most people have to start with a time constraint. That’s real world practical stuff as we all know. But, it can still be fun, and perhaps even useful, to discuss training outside of time constraints. However, just removing a time restriction doesn’t mean that more is better. More might be good up to a point and then more might be bad. Or more might not be worth the effort.
The academic questions I’m asking are basically: what do we really know about what happens in these longer rides, and is there a body of evidence suggestion how long to go and from there does that suggest any practical application. The latter is where examples like 7x2, 5x3, etc came from. To shape the discussion.
In context of time and training, we often see phrases like “lots” of Z2, or “some” intensity. That’s well meaning in context. For Z2, which is the foundation of good training, I’m wondering if there is physiologic data to suggest what actually happens in longer rides that is beneficial, and if there is data to suggest when to stop a single ride. I suspect there are not data, and that this stuff is driven by experience and some proxy variables. As we know, coaches are often far ahead of the “science”.
For further context, what got me thinking more about this was that Ronnestadt (sp - sorry) paper where they had one rider, obviously elite, and they used some very big training weeks at LIT. Both in base, then within the year long programing. Those long weeks peaked my interest and I wondered if we really knew what was going on during those long weeks.
Hope that helps shape further discussion on the topic and takes some tension out of it. Not sure why that tension came in but let’s take it out.
Will be back in a few hours. Expect either a dumpster fire or some fun comments to read 
Hmm.
You realise that you are the OP and we aren’t the ones asking for suggestions?
Maybe we’re on different pages. Good luck.
Not sure if this is what you are after…This is the gist. Will try to find a paper momentito:
Firstly, LSD engage type 1 fibers which stimulates mitochondria growth and function which increases fat utilization and by default preserves glycogen. Secondly, type 1 fibers clear lactate produced by type 2 fibers during glucose utilization and use said lactate as fuel for aforementioned mitochondria. More specifically, MCT-4 transporters move lactate produced by type 2 away from the type 2 fibers where MCT-1 transporters contained in type 1 fibers move lactate to mitochondria and burned as fuel.
I think, but do not know, this is why it’s important to go long to fatigue type 1 which requires type 2 to increase work over time. The whole thing is one chemical circle of being able to use more fat longer (at higher intensities) to preserve glycogen for when the race is on, produce more lactate, and be able to use that lactate which goes back to the beginning of fat utilization.
Have no data here.
IME if you can recover keep riding more. As a fast twitcher I have found the more Z2 (6 zone model) is the single best prescription for being an all around ass kicker during any type of event from criterium to hill climbing to long endurance gravel/road type events.
Exactly. I was wondering if there were any time course studies or longitudinal data or additional insights emerging on the molecular / cellular aspects of LSD/Zone 2 riding.
Cheers and thanks!
I’m gonna take a stab at answering without really answering…
I would doubt that the data you are looking for exists….mostly because it is starting to get too granular The differences in individual responses would require such a large data pool to make any determination that it would be almost impossible to conduct.
Specifically….
Determining which is “better” is almost certainly going to be an individual answer. Maybe if you had a large enough data set you could get some indication that the largest % of people respond best to one of those regimens, but the percentages for the other regimens are likely going to be large enough that the answer ends up being…….
….Wait for it….
It depends. 
I would recommend reading David John Bishop’s work on mitochondria function and content (volume), ex. https://researchmgt.monash.edu/ws/portalfiles/portal/284730270/279314881_oa.pdf
Tldr: intensity primary impacts mitochondria function, volume primary impacts mitochondria content (volume). This is very consistent with standard periodization - start with volume to increase the number of mitochondria and then add more intensity which improves the function of mitochondria as well as is more specific to race (generally)
Maybe a simpler answer to search for would be research that discusses the specific physiological adaptations from the longer low intensity rides
It seems that, plus the ability to recover from rides of those durations, would let you come up with a meaningful answer. Or at least a hypothesis to test on yourself
Said more simply - does research exist that indicates how different durations but the same approximate volume over a given time period impact adaptation?
Honestly I don’t know if any of what you’re asking for exists - but I share your curiosity on the topic. All that said - I’ve gotten quite a kick out of the various responses received on this thread
I graduated a long time ago but I remember reviewing a study that noted the physiological benefits of a 60 minute run. It seemed to be the Goldilocks zone where lots happened at that point but the gains beyond that were negligible til about 2-2.5 hours.
That was for running but I’ll try to dig that up (it was an old published paper journal so is going to take some sleuthing) and see if there is anything out there for cycling. I’m sure it is.
w/r to running (which is a totally different beast though):
So far, this might seem painfully obvious: those who run more mileage race faster marathons. But the subgroup analysis allows us to draw some stronger conclusions. Most notably, it doesn’t seem to matter how you accumulate that mileage: a bunch of short runs or a few long runs produce similar results. That parallels findings from earlier this summer in JAMA Internal Medicine about the health benefits of being a so-called weekend warrior: long-term mortality depends on how much exercise you get, but it doesn’t matter whether you spread your exercise throughout the week or pack it in on the weekend.
If you dig further into the subgroup analyses, you also find that the longest run was a better predictor than the average run. As a result, the researchers conclude that at a given level of mileage, it’s better to do one long run and several short ones rather than doing all your runs at a similar distance. This, too, lines up with marathon orthodoxy that says there’s no substitute for long runs.
What didn’t make much difference, that you did 20 hours, or the length of rides?
I mean, that looks like some research into the specific question, even if it is running.
I can’t provide any references, but I can relate my n=1 experience of high volume. I crossed the US last year, and averaged between 5 and 6 hrs/. day riding. I found a couple of things: 1. Riding was the focus of life, everything was done so I could ride that much each day. 2. Intensity was low zone 2 or zone 1 over 90% of the time, so I could keep doing the , 3. When I returned to my group ride in the fall I was out the back right away, having absolutely no top end at all.
I would also love a podcast deep-dive on this question! I’m more in the 12-15 hour/week crowd though, but it’s still more hours available than any Trainerroad plan that I’ve seen. I do 20+ hours a week for just a few weeks during the year when training for… ridiculousness.
I got a lot from this personal account from Nils van der Poel, World record speed skater from Sweden: https://www.howtoskate.se
Cliff notes: He follows a 5 on 2 off day a week pattern. The 5 days would have the usual 20-30 hours of a pro athlete, so they were all long days. But then he had 2 really solid recovery days, and the side-effect was he could also have a bit of a life and hang out with friends.
Fun quote from the end:
“Sometimes, to get through more hours, what was needed was an ice cream and sometimes it was multiple ice creams. The good news was that ice cream was pretty cheap. So even though other skaters had millions of euros going into their careers, I was able to skate faster than all of them, because I had found a way to enhance my performance with ice cream.”
How much is indoor?
Not much 
Indoor training realistically is about 2-3 hours, or 2 high quality interval sessions per week. At the moment the focus is endurance, gym work and technical skills on the MTB.
I’d think that is not uncommon at all, and taking a TR LV plan for those 2-3 indoor, and/or more hours as outdoor workouts, and taking the rest as group rides, cafe rides or whatever is well within what TR designed for…not every ride has to be structured in order to follow a plan