Originally Posted by
LowCel
Exactly what I meant. Had I just rode 6,500 miles those years instead of a structured 4,000 miles I would have not been as strong as I was. When training like that a lot of days I was only out for an hour or so because by the time I finished my workout I was beat. I could have ridden three or four hours those days had I not been doing intervals. I would have not had the same results though.
To say that elite cyclists ride more than 4,000 miles a year, well, no crap!
I understand. Point I was trying to make is I believe for myself...and maybe this falls under the umbrella of average versus good cyclists...the biggest deficit to achieve good status is lack of miles...can't get good without base miles. No question that quality of miles matters alot and perhaps trumps mileage ultimately as you say.
I had such a conversation with an old CAT 1 buddy of mine I caught out at the park doing intervals on his TT bike. I asked him...I said...you and I are about the same size...same musculature...and yet you are faster. We go back aways and I have ridden with him a fair amount. He said, he could make me as fast as him in 1 season. As you say...it would take a dedicated training regiment. He rides BIG AND structured miles.
I am not sure I would ultimately be quite as fast as him but I do believe him that the gap would shrink. Aside from natural talent, he is very driven in his training and as much as I like to ride hard and fast, I believe the biggest difference between us is his singular focus to train, compete and win races. In fact, perhaps biggest difference between good and average, is the natural drive to train and ride hard. I like what Eddy Merckx said about himself...what is it about you Eddy? Why are you so fast? If you look at old pictures of Eddy, he looked fairly unremarkable in musculature. He said, 'his ability to suffer'. I believe that is likely a big part of it.
