Shorter V02max Intervals are better Than Long Ones in Cycling? What the Science Says

William Horkoff
Aug 5
3 min read

In the world of endurance training, long intervals like 4x5 minutes at VO₂max pace have long been the go-to method for improving aerobic capacity. But recent research suggests that shorter, more frequent efforts may offer even greater benefits, especially when performed at high intensities with short recoveries.

And no this isn’t just true for amateurs. A 2020 study published in the Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, led by Prof. Bent Rønnestad, looked at the effects of short vs long intervals in professional cyclists and the results flipped conventional wisdom on its head.

The Study:

The researchers took 18 professional cyclists (average VO₂max ~73 ml/kg/min) and split them into two groups for a 3-week intervention:

One group performed short intervals: 3 sets of 13 minutes alternating 30 seconds ON / 15 seconds OFF.
The other group did traditional long intervals: 4 sets of 5-minute efforts with 2.5 minutes recovery between reps.

Both groups trained 8-10 hours per week at low intensity, plus 3 high-intensity sessions weekly the only difference was the interval structure.

Same Time at Intensity, Different Results

Importantly, both groups accumulated similar total time in the “on” zone (~20 minutes), and both completed the intervals at their maximum sustainable effort but the short interval group had significantly better results:

VO₂max: +2.6% vs +0.9%
20-min time trial performance: +4.7% vs −1.4%
Wmax (max aerobic power): +3.7% vs −0.3%
Power at 4mmol lactate: +3.0% vs −3.5%

So not only did the short interval group improve, but the long interval group actually regressed in some areas despite similar training loads.

What Might Explain This?

While the study didn’t directly investigate the mechanisms, there are a few logical reasons why short intervals may work better:

Higher average power output: The short interval group could push harder during the 30s efforts, leading to a stronger performance stimulus.
Reduced peripheral fatigue: The frequent short recoveries allow the central nervous system to recover slightly, letting the athlete repeat high outputs more consistently.
More time near VO₂max: Shorter, repeated efforts likely allowed for more cumulative time close to maximal oxygen uptake.

And interestingly, perceived effort (RPE) was similar between both groups, despite the short interval group working at a higher power output overall.

Real-World Application for Athletes

If you’re an endurance athlete cyclist, or triathlete this research offers strong support for adding short intervals to your training mix, especially in a VO₂max development block.

A few ways to implement:

Start with 3x8 minutes of 30s ON / 15s OFF
Progress up to 3x13 minutes, resting 3 minutes between sets
Aim for ~120–130% of your threshold power during the “on” reps
Keep “off” reps at ~50–60% of your threshold not a full recovery

And yes these absolutely work in-season, too, if timed properly.

Don’t Throw Out Long Intervals Just Yet

This doesn’t mean long intervals are obsolete. They still serve a purpose, especially when you want to target threshold development or simulate race-specific efforts.

But if you’re aiming to raise your aerobic ceiling, boost repeatable high power, or get the most from a short, focused block short intervals are likely your best tool.

Final Thoughts

This research reinforces a simple truth. you don’t always need longer intervals to get better. In fact, short, high-quality efforts may provide a bigger performance bang for your training buck even if you’re already performing at a high level.