do you ride by time or miles?

[Batbike]

I can rememebr back when I started reading a Gref le Mond book , an he recommend traing by time instead of miles, reason being that as you got better, if went by miles, your training time would decrease.

If I understand correctly, if you go by time you will increase your miles in the same amount of time as your fitness improves?

Makes me wonder if that is really true -- I guess you would have to do the same route on multiple days to determine that. Would you also monitor your HR to check fitness?

... questions, questions, questions -- I ALWAYS seem to have questions!

[Fredwina]

If I understand correctly, if you go by time you will increase your miles in the same amount of time as your fitness improves?

Exactly!

IMakes me wonder if that is really true -- I guess you would have to do the same route on multiple days to determine that. Would you also monitor your HR to check fitness?

I monitor my HR when I remember to turn it on
To check the level I have several set courses. I then use my Bike journal account to comapare (did same route with high avg speed. lower avg hr, etc

[Starfish]

These days I'm tracking (and shooting for) a certain number of minutes/week for aerobic exercise...be it on the bike or on a machine in the gym. I loosely keep track of aerobic vs. higher HR time. I find cross training helps keep my joints more comfortable, so it makes sense for me to track total exercise time and HR intensity.

But, I also have an increasing target schedule for both mileage and climbing on the bike for weekend rides, to keep me on track for a biking goal.

[velogirl]

I schedule my clients in time. There are no miles indicated in their training programs at all. It's up to them to choose the appropriate route for the type of workout I've prescribed for a given day. The only other metrics I use is watts (for my power-based clients) and elevation gain (for my clients focusing on events like the death ride).

Miles are not a true indicator or your effort. Your total miles will vary by terrain (ie hilly or flat), wind, traffic, road ride vs mtn bike ride, etc.

[Eden]

I have a coach and all my workouts are by time not mileage. I even swapped my computer onto my race bike for the summer, so now if I take the rain bike out I only have the hr monitor on so I don't even know what my mileage is....

[SadieKate]

Miles are not a true indicator or your effort. Your total miles will vary by terrain (ie hilly or flat), wind, traffic, road ride vs mtn bike ride, etc.

Well said.

The 87 mile survival ride of the SLO Wildflower was far beyond the effort of the Santa Rosa 200k. I've been on 50 mile mtn bike rides that were harder than road centuries.

I factor miles, terrain, bike type, effort for that ride, etc. when planning each ride. I have specific set loops that I use for road training during the week only because I know that they work for the time alloted so I don't go for a pure time-based workout like Eden. But depending on that week's plan, I may cruise an easy recovery pace or do intervals. A mtb ride is generally based on the miles only because of the practicality of trail layouts, but if I'm on a multi-day trip I'll vary the routes based on effort level (time, distance and trail difficulty).

So one of my little pet peeves: the perceived mileage competition over on bikejournal. It ain't a competition unless both riders know it. I'm for quality miles not junk miles. The members with specific goals such as races or particular events (like DMD or brevets) never get their chamois in a bundle over their rank. Matter of fact, an extremely strong rider I know states that due to knee trouble, he can only tolerate X hours of riding per year. He obviously makes the most of those hours and I wish I could ride like he does. Ok, have to step down off my little soap box now.

[Batbike]

So one of my little pet peeves: the perceived mileage competition over on bikejournal. It ain't a competition unless both riders know it. I'm for quality miles not junk miles. The members with specific goals such as races or particular events (like DMD or brevets) never get their chamois in a bundle over their rank. Matter of fact, an extremely strong rider I know states that due to knee trouble, he can only tolerate X hours of riding per year. He obviously makes the most of those hours and I wish I could ride like he does. Ok, have to step down off my little soap box now.

Thank you for saying that! I discovered, inadvertantly, that 2 members of my local bike club were "discussing my miles" and that one thought the amount of miles I rode was "low" while the other wanted to "beat me". After hearing this, I noticed the one who wanted to "beat me" started riding more and more and has surpassed me in miles ... goody for him! As for the one who thinks I don't ride enough, well what can I say to that ... everyone has their opinion! Yes, I do want to ride more, but on my schedule -- thus, the question that started this thread. Yet, must agree, miles for sake of miles can't be any good -- quality vs. junk miles sounds good!! Anyway, as for bikejournal, I ended-up going into PRIVATE mode so that my miles are my miles and not a benchmark for someone's competition (that I am not aware of and involved in).

[Fredwina]

A couple of more thoughts.
The preident of my local club is capapable of dropping pro roadies, but lil' miss pokey has more miles than he does on bike journal.
So yeah, miles without any underlying critera is just... junk. I remeber talking with the Guys that I rode into Flagstaff with on the Arizona 300K i did last weekend about how that was tough than most centuries we had done. Ironically, the last Time i was in AZ was for the Tour De Tuscon, where i did about twice the miles (109 vs 65) in less time (7 vs 8).

[pooks]

I schedule my clients in time. There are no miles indicated in their training programs at all. It's up to them to choose the appropriate route for the type of workout I've prescribed for a given day. The only other metrics I use is watts (for my power-based clients) and elevation gain (for my clients focusing on events like the death ride).

Miles are not a true indicator or your effort. Your total miles will vary by terrain (ie hilly or flat), wind, traffic, road ride vs mtn bike ride, etc.

I've been keeping track of my miles because it was the obvious way to track my riding. Now that I'm on sparkpeople and they measure by time and mph, I'm keeping track both ways.

I know that the best thing would be to get a heart monitor but I haven't managed that yet. But when I look at the sparkpeople numbers I'm confused. I'm counting my time as at 10-11.9 mph. Now that I've got a new bike computer I'll have an even better handle on my mph.

BUT -- I'm on a 38 pound bike and carrying a lot of extra weight on my body. Does that make me burn more calories than if I were a more normal weight on a road bike? Or am I just having a bit of wishful thinking, here?

[Geonz]

It's physics. Push a heavier thing - you need more force; you need to do more "work" as in the physics kind. WOrk takes calories. More work takes more calories.

Of course, it's not a linear relationship and the fitter you are the less difference it makes! I burned extra calories today on my big red bike toting the cooler with the ice and bananas and yogurt and the blender apparatus... and didn't have *too* much smoothie to undo it

I'm afraid I'm just plain addicted... and right now tired enough so that even though the next ILlinois rider is a big fat four miles ahead of me I have *no* intention of taking th3 5 mile route home Let 'em go... my rides are **my** rides. (And when I *am* feeling competitive, I tell that side that welp, none of the folks ahead of me are on 40 pound hybrids most of the time )

[velogirl]

It's interesting to see how the term "junk miles" has been perceived on this thread. Junk miles (in a training/coaching perspective) refers to miles that have no specific training value, meaning they do not create physiological adaptation.

For example, one of my clients commutes to work in SF each morning and again in the evening. Her commute is very short (3 miles each way) and is interspersed with stop lights. She doesn't get a sustained effort and her HR stays low. There is no true training adaptation that will take place during these 3 miles, so those are referred to as junk miles.

Another example is a traditional training route from SF into Marin county. In order to get out to the main loop, you have to ride through a bunch of little towns (again, stop & go like the first example). Even though there is time on the bike, the effort is not sustained and never reaches a high enough intensity to create adaptation, so those would also be considered junk miles.

I don't think there's any judgement intended in the term. It's simply a term that's trickled down from the coaching world to describe time in the saddle that doesn't really have training value.

Here's another example that might be meaningful to some of you. Let's say you workout at the gym twice a week. Your total time commitment to train includes the time to transport yourself to the gym, change clothes, and put your belongings in a locker (let's say that's 30 minutes total). Now, even though all those things are necessary to do your workout, none of them help your body adapt (ie there is no training stress). So, those 30 minutes wouldn't be considered training time (ie they would be junk miles).

[DarcyInOregon]

It's interesting to see how the term "junk miles" has been perceived on this thread. Junk miles (in a training/coaching perspective) refers to miles that have no specific training value, meaning they do not create physiological adaptation.

Except a lot of cyclists who are members of this forum are fitness/fun riders, who do not belong to clubs, and who never intend to race. If a cyclist who races is going to use a specific term that is used by racers, then the term should be clarified. I know for myself, all my time on the bike is good because I get a cardio workout and I burn calories and best yet - I always have fun and enjoy myself. Therefore, no junk miles for me.

Pooks, when you bike on a heavy bike, yes, technically, you will burn more calories if you are able to pedal it like a road bike. Remember, I am one of many who biked on one of those heavy bikes and I still own it. I know for a fact that with the heavy bike I could not get my heart rate up as high because the bike was too heavy to pedal with as much effort as I give the road bike. Therefore, I actually burn more calories on my road bike per hour because I am able to pedal faster and stronger, go up steeper and more hills, and go for longer distances with more time spent on the bike. With respect to your question about the charts on your internet site, I haven't found a single chart that gave me an accurate number. The HRM gives a better estimate, and it still is not exact. Most of the charts will tell me I am burning more than twice the calories per hour than what my HRM says. I will go by the HRM because if the higher number on the charts was the real deal, then by golly, I would be very skinny - and I am not.

For example, the following activity charts says a person of 190 pounds who bicycles at 12-13.9 mph burns 690 calories per hour, at 14-15.9 mph 863 calories per hour, and 16-19 mph 1035 calories per hour. I pedal in the range of 14-19 mph, depending upon all of the variables, and I can tell you on a good day with a brisk wind and a lot of steep hills I might, just might, burn 500 calories an hour. That is how huge the difference is for me and what the charts say.

http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist.htm


Darcy