Training Hours vs Training Miles?

Spinners_are_winners said:

Does anyone have any thoughts/feedback on this approach?

Neither training hours nor training miles by themselves take into account
training intensity.

Robert Chung said:

Spinners_are_winners said:

Does anyone have any thoughts/feedback on this approach?

Neither training hours nor training miles by themselves take into account
training intensity.

Well, your beloved intensity doesn't take into account volume, dumbass.

On Mar 5, 1:15 am, "Spinners_are_winners" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I have started to read Joe Friel's Cyclists Training Bible. In it he
emphasises training hours rather than training miles. Adopting this
approach for example you aren't conentrating on average speed for your
ride. All my cycling buddies on the other hand only talk about how
many miles they are pumping out each week.

Coffee shop points. Doesn't matter which you use. If you are just
riding for riding, who cares. If you are 'training' for some
specifics, use a coach.

Quoted message said:

Does anyone have any thoughts/feedback on this approach? Has anyone
used his program successfully?

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Coffee shop points. Doesn't matter which you use. If you are just
riding for riding, who cares. If you are 'training' for some
specifics, use a coach.

Quoted message said:

Does anyone have any thoughts/feedback on this approach? Has anyone
used his program successfully?

This is silly. Just because you're training for a specific event, doesn't mean
you need a coach. The whole point of reading the Training Bible is to establish
a personal training program. Plenty of successful riders do so.

Neither miles nor distance are uniquely meaningful. Obviously, if I trackstand,
I add hours, not training. If I'm doing intervals, and warm up 2 hours instead
of 1, then do 10 minutes of intervals, does that increase the value of the
workout by a factor 13/7? Hardly. There's junk miles, and junk hours.

I've never seen a strong argument for preferring hours. The usual argument is
something like "miles in a headwind are worth more than miles w/o wind". Sure.
But the headwind usually comes with a tailwind. And climbing usually comes
with a descent.

So my strong suspicion is either works, if you're consistent.

However, I recommend reading Coggan's "Training and Racing with a Power Meter".
There's other metrics which describe better training load. Friel even did the
introduction, where he indicates this is an advancement on his Training Bible work.

Dan

Quoted message said:

Robert Chung said:

Spinners_are_winners said:

Does anyone have any thoughts/feedback on this approach?

Neither training hours nor training miles by themselves take into account
training intensity.

Well, your beloved intensity doesn't take into account volume, dumbass.

TSS does:
http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/defined.asp

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mar 5, 1:15 am, "Spinners_are_winners" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I have started to read Joe Friel's Cyclists Training Bible. In it he
emphasises training hours rather than training miles. Adopting this
approach for example you aren't conentrating on average speed for your
ride. All my cycling buddies on the other hand only talk about how
many miles they are pumping out each week.

Coffee shop points. Doesn't matter which you use. If you are just
riding for riding, who cares. If you are 'training' for some
specifics, use a coach.

Quoted message said:

Does anyone have any thoughts/feedback on this approach? Has anyone
used his program successfully?

Good point Peter. The body cannot discern the difference between time and
miles. The reason coaches set up a program in either miles or time is
because one or the other will work better for the individual customer. As
long as the appropriate exercises are completed for that particular training
session, there is no difference how the length is expressed.

Bruce

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Robert Chung said:

Spinners_are_winners said:

Does anyone have any thoughts/feedback on this approach?

Neither training hours nor training miles by themselves take into account
training intensity.

Well, your beloved intensity doesn't take into account volume, dumbass.

Friels book includes intensity as a factor of periodization, as in the 2003
edition: pages 94, 121-128, etc.

JF

Jim Flom said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Robert Chung said:

Spinners_are_winners wrote:
> Does anyone have any thoughts/feedback on this approach?
Neither training hours nor training miles by themselves take into account
training intensity.

Well, your beloved intensity doesn't take into account volume, dumbass.

Friels book includes intensity as a factor of periodization, as in the 2003
edition: pages 94, 121-128, etc.

Hours + intensity of each segment of a workout is obviously better than distance
alone. But do you record that? I don't. My training diary has "distance" +
"hours" + "intervals" for each workout. If I add a junk hour onto an interval
session, this confounds interpretation of either distance or time, so neither is
a really good metric. On the other hand, junk hours would have little influence
on TSS.

TSS is essentially the same as recording time and intensity for each sampling
interval recorded for a workout (<< 1 minute per interval).

Dan

"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jim Flom said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mar 5, 2:56?am, "Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Spinners_are_winners wrote:
>> Does anyone have any thoughts/feedback on this approach?
> Neither training hours nor training miles by themselves take into
> account
> training intensity.
Well, your beloved intensity doesn't take into account volume, dumbass.

Friels book includes intensity as a factor of periodization, as in the
2003 edition: pages 94, 121-128, etc.

Hours + intensity of each segment of a workout is obviously better than
distance alone. But do you record that? I don't. My training diary has
"distance" + "hours" + "intervals" for each workout. If I add a junk hour
onto an interval session, this confounds interpretation of either distance
or time, so neither is a really good metric. On the other hand, junk
hours would have little influence on TSS.

TSS is essentially the same as recording time and intensity for each
sampling interval recorded for a workout (<< 1 minute per interval).

I was just addressing the OP's question about hours versus miles, that Friel
is more nuanced than that. CyclingPeaks seems to do it all. I was going to
say that it seems to assume a power meter, but the FAQs say a power meter is
unnecessary, at least for a single entry.

For the racer on a budget, and short of Friel's own online training, what's
left? Using Friel's book alone, it looks like intensity would be measured
by perceived exertion. For me it becomes a balance of fun, expense, the
weenie ratio, and time. How much of a data weenie can I afford to be before
it stops being fun?

"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote in message
news:45EC1F68.8090507@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m...

Quoted message said:

This is silly. Just because you're training for a specific event, doesn't
mean you need a coach. The whole point of reading the Training Bible is
to establish a personal training program. Plenty of successful riders do
so.

Most successful amateur riders use this method. Most pros without teams also
use this method. I remember talking to some guys who used to ride around the
country in an old beatup van and hit all the big races and between the three
of them they'd murder the competition and walk away with the purse. It was a
living I suppose but they lived in that van. None of them looked all that
clean let me tell you.

I guess that's sort of what's happening in Europe. Guys like Ludo are all
over the place and don't have any teams so they just smoke the local races.

Quoted message said:

However, I recommend reading Coggan's "Training and Racing with a Power
Meter". There's other metrics which describe better training load. Friel
even did the introduction, where he indicates this is an advancement on
his Training Bible work.

My idea is that you train and you get better or you don't get better. If you
get better that's motivation to continue stricter training and if you don't
get better it's motivation to get a job.

EVERYONE will get better by training but those who improve the fastest are
those who find the motivation to continue the challenge. I suppose everyone
also reaches the limits of their ability if they train long and hard enough.
The problem is the horrible feeling of losing that fitness so rapidly when
you slip off of the training regime. It takes so long to achieve fitness and
so little time to lose it that some people just quit riding after they stop
racing for a couple of years.

Proper training has to take into account time, intensity on the body
(perhaps measured by power or by heartrate) plus outcomes in the form
of power or speed on the bike.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Spinners_are_winners said:

I have started to read Joe Friel's Cyclists Training Bible. In it he
emphasises training hours rather than training miles. Adopting this
approach for example you aren't conentrating on average speed for your
ride. All my cycling buddies on the other hand only talk about how
many miles they are pumping out each week.

If they only talk about hours with no mention of intensity, they're
not mearuring/planning right.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Quoted message said:

EVERYONE will get better by training but those who improve the fastest are
those who find the motivation to continue the challenge. I suppose

everyone

Quoted message said:

also reaches the limits of their ability if they train long and hard

enough.

Quoted message said:

The problem is the horrible feeling of losing that fitness so rapidly when
you slip off of the training regime. It takes so long to achieve fitness

and

Quoted message said:

so little time to lose it that some people just quit riding after they

stop

Quoted message said:

racing for a couple of years.

Before this gets too heated, let me suggest a training pattern that many
successful racers use. It goes like this:

Monday - Recovery
Tuesday - Intervals
Wednesday Intervals
Thursday - Tempo mileage
Friday - rest
Saturday - long group ride or race
Sunday - long group ride or race

During race season there are usually weekly crits. Most places seem to like
Tuesday or Wednesday for some reason. For non-racers the pattern will work
just as well.

For intervals start out with something like three 3 minute VO2's at 90 - 100
RPM. Use a heart rate monitor to make sure you are doing the correct
intensity. Of course you really need to establish the correct numbers by
pretesting for your actual maximum. The 220 - age is as accurate as any
average guess can be.

Always finish a VO2 workout with an 8 minute lactic acid threshold interval
(Zone 4) (85 -90 RPM)

After a while the VO2's progress to 6 x 4 minutes. Before race season opens,
you need to probably produce 6 x 5 minutes.

Using a wind trainer is the easiest way to gauge progress and the most
dramatic. As you progress, the gear in the back that you select keeps
progressing toward the smallest cog. Fluids are nice but can really beat up
your legs.

There is a tremendous amount of detail and good scientific data that can get
tossed in at any point, but the basic stress pattern I described will be a
good starting point for many folks. Recovery can be built in on any day
other than an interval session. You can even move the days around to suit a
schedule, but that is about the right amount of work for a week.

Bruce

Bruce Gilbert said:

The 220 - age is as accurate as any
average guess can be.

This is not correct. Check the wikipedia page on the subject. All formulas are
poor, but there are better ones than this.

Dan

"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bruce Gilbert said:

The 220 - age is as accurate as any
average guess can be.

This is not correct. Check the wikipedia page on the subject. All

formulas are

Quoted message said:

poor, but there are better ones than this.

Dan

Like I said Dan, individual testing is the real answer...
Test correctly and then you have real data.

Brief reply as I have to run to work - riding about 16 years, racing
for 4, 46 y.o. Cat IV on extremely limited time (busy profession -
check a thread from about a year ago on my situation). Despite
significant miles and dedication to the sport, never got beyond the
tail of the 45+ pack. Bought the book, made sense to me. Too time
consuming to plan by hand (and leaves the room for wrong judgments),
so I signed up for trainingpeaks.com, the related website which does
an Annual Training Plan for you.
Since Jan 1, I've gotten faster, stronger, and lighter then ever
significantly. I've just been training with a HRM and not a power
meter. Only one race so far this year, but even without teammates I
was able to make a couple of breaks, cover a couple of others, etc.
Unthinkable last year - it was an accomplishment just to finish at the
tail of the pack. Climbing 2-3 cogs lower on the same hillsin
training. Bottom line - everyone's different, but the emphasis on
skills, recovery, and accountability (recording what you do) has made
a great difference for me.

YMMV.........Lou D'Amelio

On Mar 5, 3:15 am, "Spinners_are_winners" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I have started to read Joe Friel's Cyclists Training Bible. In it he
emphasises training hours rather than training miles. Adopting this
approach for example you aren't conentrating on average speed for your
ride. All my cycling buddies on the other hand only talk about how
many miles they are pumping out each week.

Does anyone have any thoughts/feedback on this approach? Has anyone
used his program successfully?

Personally I find that using hours versus miles just makes life
easier. Since few of us are pros (let's be honest, how many pros are
posting to this group?) and have day jobs, training time is limited.
I for one want to have some modicum of a social life, so that my days
are not "work, ride, eat, sleep, repeat". By planning my workouts in
hours, I'm (A) able to plan dinners, movies, etc., with friends, and
(B) not stressing about doing X number of miles. Also, I think it's
important to listen to your body, and by not stretching a workout to
fit a pre-determined number of miles on a given day, I find I'm less
likely to force myself into overtraining on any given day.

I used that book. It works. Only one way for you to find out. Do it, do
it NOW. Seriously, it is a great way to train, and it DOES work. Believe
me, Joe Friel doesn't have one of the most referred to books on the market
for nothing.

"Spinners_are_winners" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I have started to read Joe Friel's Cyclists Training Bible. In it he
emphasises training hours rather than training miles. Adopting this
approach for example you aren't conentrating on average speed for your
ride. All my cycling buddies on the other hand only talk about how
many miles they are pumping out each week.

Does anyone have any thoughts/feedback on this approach? Has anyone
used his program successfully?