Rider 1 rides 25 miles/day, every day with a focus on upping his average. Doing the simple math, he gets 175 miles per week.
Rider 2 rides four to five times per week, putting in about the same distance. Rider 2 gets three ~30 mile rides, and then one or two longer ones.
If all variables were held constant (route, effort, vertical, weekly distance) except for the frequency, who would end up in better condition?
Your question doesn't make sense... if rider 2 is doing three 30 mile rides, then "one or two longer ones" he or she is getting in as many or more miles than rider 1.
Rider 1 rides 25 miles/day, every day with a focus on upping his average. Doing the simple math, he gets 175 miles per week.
Rider 2 rides four to five times per week, putting in about the same distance. Rider 2 gets three ~30 mile rides, and then one or two longer ones.
If all variables were held constant (route, effort, vertical, weekly distance) except for the frequency, who would end up in better condition?
Your question doesn't make sense... if rider 2 is doing three 30 mile rides, then "one or two longer ones" he or she is getting in as many or more miles than rider 1.
whew there's a lot of info on starting, developing training but once into it, aware of the possibilties and potentials-only specific results can show you the way. bottom line here was if you train recreational 50 miles once a week with 15 miles each day-cycle excercises-stretches-nutrition-sprints then your gonna go 50 miles easy but 100 easy no. to go 100 then you have to...
> Rider 1 rides 25 miles/day, every day with a focus on upping his > average. Doing the simple math, he gets 175 miles per week. > > Rider 2 rides four to five times per week, putting in about the same > distance. Rider 2 gets three ~30 mile rides, and then one or two > longer ones. > > If all variables were held constant (route, effort, vertical, weekly > distance) except for the frequency, who would end up in better > condition?
Your question doesn't make sense... if rider 2 is doing three 30 mile rides, then "one or two longer ones" he or she is getting in as many or more miles than rider 1.
175 - (3*30) = 85
It's called aritemetic, use it!
It's called reading comprehension. Try it!
I actually wrote a response that started out with precisely the same words (glad I "read ahead"...). ;-)
I didn't read the "weekly distance" proviso to mean that both riders rode the same weekly distance, but that the rides they each did were consistent week to week. After all, how can rides of very different length have the same "route" unless they're doing all their riding on a five mile loop? Yuck.
In the end, the two riders aren't doing a lot differently, and will likely end up with fairly similar results. Of course, if rider two can do his or her "longer ride" at the same "effort" rider 1 is doing his or her 25 mile rides, he or she is obviously in better shape.
So the question really does need to be explained a bit better... I think Carl probably nailed down the OP's intent in his missive.
A more practical approach would be that someone who never goes more than 30 miles in training is not likely to do well if asked to pace himself for an 85-mile ride nearly three times his normal distance or any ride that takes more than two hours.
I've found that intensity is a reasonable substitute for distance. I once did a very windy out-and-back century at a time when I hadn't done any rides over about 25 miles for months, but a lot of those rides were at a very high pace. I felt great the whole time, dropped almost everyone I was riding with and finished with a group of three others in 4:20 something. Then I went for a ride of about 20 more miles, and still felt fine. YMMV.
