Can we really say that casual rides have no value when it comes to building a solid foundation for cycling, or are we just giving credence to the no pain, no gain crowd who think that only brutally structured training programs are worthy of respect? If someone consistently puts in 500 miles a month just cruising around their neighborhood, exploring local trails, or commuting to work, but doesnt follow a rigid training plan, are they really that different from someone who does interval training and hill repeats three times a week? Would the average rider even notice a difference in terms of overall fitness and endurance between these two scenarios, or is the perception of structured training being superior just a product of cycling culture and marketing?
Does the argument that casual rides cant build a solid foundation stem from the fact that they dont allow for precise measurement and tracking of progress, which is supposedly a necessary component of real training? Or is it because weve been conditioned to believe that if it doesnt hurt, its not worth doing? Its not like the body cares whether were riding at a leisurely pace or pushing ourselves to exhaustion - its still going to adapt to the demands we place on it. So, whats the real difference between a 20-mile slog up a mountain and a 20-mile spin around the lake? The scenery? The Strava badge? The bragging rights?
Does the argument that casual rides cant build a solid foundation stem from the fact that they dont allow for precise measurement and tracking of progress, which is supposedly a necessary component of real training? Or is it because weve been conditioned to believe that if it doesnt hurt, its not worth doing? Its not like the body cares whether were riding at a leisurely pace or pushing ourselves to exhaustion - its still going to adapt to the demands we place on it. So, whats the real difference between a 20-mile slog up a mountain and a 20-mile spin around the lake? The scenery? The Strava badge? The bragging rights?