Originally Posted by
cruisintx
ok, take two guys who train based on time; I'll still put my money on the guy training on hills to become a stronger rider more quickly than the one training on flat ground.
If you give me better than 1:1 odds and a large sample size I'd love to make that bet.
Originally Posted by
cruisintx
and you cant's say people don't train on distance, everyone I know around here picks a route (pre-determined distance) and they go ride. All they have to worry about is getting home before dark; which they almost always do.
If you're riding in mountains the distance you can get in before dark is going to be different than if you're riding in FL. People will change the distance they chose to do accordingly, based on their experience of how long it takes them. This is ignoring the people who have training plans which are based around time, who obviously train to a specified time.
Originally Posted by
cruisintx
also someone explain to me why it is that when I started riding again in January after a ten-year hiatus, an 8 mile ride took me 45 minutes (on hills) while my flat-lander buddy who has been riding every year for the last four was already riding 20 miles (on flat ground). Now after a season of training, I can run away from him on flatland rides even though he has ridden over 1600 miles this year compared to my 1065. we're not talking about a strictly controlled scientific experiement here folks, just guys who get out and ride (like 99% of us) -- frequent and consistent hilll training will result in you becoming a stronger rider than doing even more miles on flat ground.
n=1
That's an anecdote, it's meaningless as a general statement. Also, to quote someone's sig that I liked, the plural of anecdote is not data.