Road Cycling - Better to ride for distance or time?

Is it better to ride for:

For Example:
Time: ride 2 hours every ride, and go further as you get faster
or
Distance: ride 20 miles every ride, and take less time as you get faster

It http://diaperfetch.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/DEPENDS-MEN.jpgs.

You just pick a route/intensity/length based on the kind of exercise you want to do, and how much time you have to do it. I think that is the most practical approach.

I don't really see why distance or time should be held constant.

I think time is better, if you're riding for fitness. You get a better cardio workout by keeping your heart rate elevated for a certain amount of time. Your heart doesn't know how fast you're going on the bike. But if you can keep it elevated for a certain amount of time (I always hear 60 minutes at least) then distance doesn't really matter.

For me, though, it depends on if I'm making a loop route, or an out-back route. If a loop, then the loop is the distance and I usually go for speed and best time. If it's out-back then I might go as far as I want to go (like half the time available) and then come back. But then again if the out-back is more of a set distance (like the 7-mile length of the MUP) then I'll treat it the same as the loop route.

Ride long distances, for a long time. Problem solved.

I think both styles are important.
I used to really enjoy riding a commute to work and trying to beat my own time every time.
But long sustained effort I think is also important for overall health etc.

Time. Pick a reasonable amount of time to be on the bike and then make the most of it.

Distance is a variable, not a constant.

your body recognizes elapsed time and effort. Not miles.

This is like "is it better to spin fast in a low gear, or pedal slower in a high gear" question.
And the master responded:
It is better to spin faster in a higher gear.

Take the mileage from my hand, grasshopper.

Time. Pick a reasonable amount of time to be on the bike and then make the most of it.

Distance is a variable, not a constant.


your body recognizes elapsed time and effort. Not miles.

These

Time. Distance is only a proxy for time.

I say, set a definite distance. Like to some kinda landmark (perhaps a McDonald's restaurant) or something, and watch your time decrease with increased skill and practice. :thumb:

Pretty sure you could search the archives and find 5,000 answers to this very same question. Pick the answer you like.

Why are you riding?

build a base, ride lots of miles. I mean two water bottles with two energy bars and start at dawn and don't come home until the sunsets! when you've recovered, do short hard rides during the week. repeat. the first week you will feel like crap. by the 3rd week, you will kick a$$!

Whichever YOU like to do.

If you're training...time

If you're going somewhere...distance

Why don't you let us all in on the big secret - why are you asking this question.

It depends. (As usual.)

For steady state efforts, either are good.

If you're notorious about not 'going the distance' and slacking off when it gets hard (like, bailing out at mile 60 out of a planned 80 mile ride), go by distance if you need to push yourself to stay honest about the miles.

If you're good about pacing and aren't feeling beaten down and slower than usual, time is great.

The elevation profile does screw with the distance somewhat but I find that for the 5-7 regular rides I do around here, you get enough repetitions that you can tell how hard you were going on that day just by looking at the time.

This is the moment where all the Powermeter owners start screaming about how everything else including HR is totally, utterly useless and that the only way to train is by power and TSS scores, despite the fact that professional cycling was around well before powermeters ever existed, and a surprising number of up and coming pros and triathletes don't use them.

Is it better to ride for:

For Example:
Time: ride 2 hours every ride, and go further as you get faster
or
Distance: ride 20 miles every ride, and take less time as you get faster

If it takes you 2 hours to ride 20 miles spend less time on the internet and more time on the bike.


EDIT: Oh, guess that means the answer is "time"

I like to ride fast but it's not the most important thing to me. I just like to get a good workout and enjoy myself.

If you're training...time

If you're going somewhere...distance

Why don't you let us all in on the big secret - why are you asking this question.

Just curious what people do/think.


If it takes you 2 hours to ride 20 miles spend less time on the internet and more time on the bike.


EDIT: Oh, guess that means the answer is "time"

Numbers not realistic, just used them to keep the question simple.

I ride more for time, because for me, cycling is equally about recreation, and enjoying myself, as it is for fitness and improvement.

Why are you riding?


Whichever YOU like to do.

+1. It depends on what a person is trying to accomplish, and based on that, the answer becomes self evident. Doing intervals? group training ride? Touring?


Just curious what people do/think.

I understand. This is another, "what color should I like?" type of thread.:rolleyes:

When I do a group ride, I ride whatever distance the group is riding, and it takes whatever time it takes.
When I ride alone after work I try to get in an hour of semi-hard effort.

It is very difficult to acheive goals that dont exist. If you wish to have improved performance ,determine in what aspect, (speed, endurance, climbing) then do drills designed to improve that aspect. Riding this way or that way is the least effective use of time or distance.

what are your cycling goals?? ride appropriately for that. my cycling goals are general fitness and enjoyment, most of my solo rides are <60 mins, though I do some that are over that when I have a partner to ride with.

If your goal is to become faster more competitive it's all about intensity.

This is like "is it better to spin fast in a low gear, or pedal slower in a high gear" question.
And the master responded:
It is better to spin faster in a higher gear.

Take the mileage from my hand, grasshopper.
Hilarious. Asking you permission to use it when I can on my next group ride? :D

Time.

As a practical matter, since I have a full time job and a full time family, I have to always go with time over distance.

amount of distance over a period of time.

Easy. On my slow, heavy bike, time. On my fast, light bike, distance.

False dichotomy - I suspect that the answer you are looking for is intensity, either as determined by HR or power. Having said that, intensity over a fixed period of time will get you stronger.

If your goal is to become faster more competitive it's all about intensity.

You still have to get in the miles to get good at the longer stuff. There are few super talents who seem to perform well with 60 minute workouts even for centuries, but for most folks, if you're maxing your workout length at 90 minutes with no longer rides during the week, you'll be suffering pretty good on a century road race, or even a metric century for the more average genetics person. You might go out fast and rock the first 2 hours, but hours 3 and 4+ will pay your lack of mileage back and more.