Any general consensus on whether you should build mileage first or your speed first in cycling?

So if i want to ride 100 miles in 4-5 hours, should i build my mileage up and then work on speed, or speed first and then work on mileage? Assuming I already have a good base fitness level.

From what I've seen marathon programs typically build mileage first and then speed. Is this the same for cycling?

Yes - mileage first then speed will come.

You need to build you cycling base - upping your muscle memory through plenty of time on the bike. This will increase your cardiovascular fitness and you will start to find that you can ride faster for the same effort over time - so speed should come on its own.

So - you need to put time into your legs.

Once you have a good base, you can start working on other areas.

Consensus is mileage first then speed. I work on both at the same time. I find that some very hard efforts once or twice a week (steep hills) makes the distance rides much easier. I suffer less that way. I'd rather suffer at 100% for an hour than 70% for 6 hours.

You can do inverse periodization, where you build intensity first and volume second. It's just less used, and less-studied. Friel claims it has merits for those whose ultimate goal is volume over speed, i.e. your average century rider.

The main argument is that it's hard to maintain intense training and high volume for very long, while the rewards are reaped pretty quickly. Volume takes more time to build. People are also just afraid to do any intensity before they're done the volume. On the bike, this is probably over-cautious.

I like this method because it means I can maintain high fitness with intensity on the trainer in the winter, and build my volume in warm weather. Staying out of the cold and cutting volume on the trainer, while getting to stay off the trainer (I can't do intervals very well outside around here) and ride outside when it's nice is a great trade for me.

I'm also not a racer, so getting better in any sense and building fitness is fine with me. I am getting faster, and am satisfied with this method for now.

If you want to do a 4 hr century you'd better be pretty damned good to start with, or just ride with a fast pack.

First do your first centuy. Then do a fast century.

Training is all about time & effort for me. 5-10 miles into a strong headwind can be equivalent to 20 miles with a tailwind. I'm not going to say distance is irrelevant for training (based on goals), but yeah, time & effort.

Personally, what I have always done, Speed First, speed second, speed third. Distance is irrelevant to me (No more than 50 miles)<<< No coasting.

The way I have heard it is to get your base in before you work on really high intensity. I sort of think though that different methods work for different people. Remember any exercise you can do regularly is better than the ideal exercise that you never or seldom do. Quantity and consistency will trump nonexistant quality every time.

Me, I like mileage and some intensity. It works for me. But if you find it daunting to do mileage and love to do hard intervals, do them as long as you don't beat yourself up.

For running my personal preference is working on speed and then distance, so i set a target pace for 2 miles and once i get it and am able to consistently reach that goal with reduced effort i start working on my 3 mile pace, reach my target and then go to 4 miles. I think i just enjoy shorter faster runs than longer slower ones.

Wasn't sure if this would work for cycling and especially over a 100 miles, or even what approach i should take. Is there a good way to build speed over a long distance (100 miles)? Would intervals work for a century, seems they may be better suited for crits or tri speed work.

If i do go with the speed work, should i use the same approach? Set a goal pace for say 20 miles, reach it then start working on a 40 mile goal pace, and so on until i can do 100 miles (this is what i've been doing).

You have to work them both, particularly because we're already well into the season. Speed over a century is all about endurance. The only way to build endurance is mileage. But a fast century is also about speed. So you also have to do speed work, and it takes time to build up speed work just like it does to build endurance. Though you develop speed faster through speed work than you do endurance through endurance work, the problem is that for a fast century you need to develop the ability to ride hard for a long time. Think 80% of MHR for your average HR.

To ride a century, you should have done several weeks where your weekly mileage was at least 100. For a fast century, your weekly mileage should be around 200 for a few weeks. Some of those 200 should be at well above your century pace, including some hard hill work, and some rides should be at below, even well below your century pace. Every week you should have one ride of 60-80 miles, including some good hills, and some of those 200 mile weeks should include century length rides.

So you have to start easing your weekly mileage up and at the same time including some rides at high intensity. Don't try to ride long rides at high intensity at first. Separate the two endeavors. Shorter high intensity rides, and long, lower intensity rides. Gradually increase the intensity of the long rides as you are able, without putting yourself in a hole and not being able to keep up the mileage for the rest of the week.

Yes, of course a balanced approach to exercise is important for improvement in any sport.

And for every athlete and every athletic goal there is an optimal ratio of conditioning and intensity work that results in improvements in both power as well as endurance. From what I can gather of your post, I doubt you have the cycling experience to design any of your training specifically for a Century.

If you want to ride a sub-five-hour Century then a good starting place would be to create a set of rides that builds enough power to ride at 20mph for an hour or more. If you find this easy to do - then test yourself for a 38 mile ride in two-hours.

My point being, typically cyclists develop a particular level of power, and then extend their endurance at this level. This is lot so unlike learning to run a few sub-seven minute miles and then learning to run more of them back to back.

So go do your speed work at 20mph, and then see if you can learn to ride like that for hours and hours.

100 miles in 4 hours? Solo? That would be superman impressive. 5 hours is incredibly impressive.

your body knows time, not speed. Ride for 1 hour at a time, or 8 hours a week.
add 10% a week....

My last century Aug 2009 I averaged 16 mph and i was completely out of shape, the month leading up to the race i was living off Burger King in Alabama while at the client site working 70 hours per week. This year I got to where I could maintain 20 mph for 40 miles on a MUP (a lot of stops and areas I had to slow down) in April, then crashed at the end of April, borrowed a friends bike for the MS 150 the beginning of May, and haven't been back on the bike, I need to buy a new wheel and fix some parts (considering just buying a new bike). The injuries were bad and took a while to heal and regain full movement.

I'd like to start biking again come june so I'll have 3 months of intense training to hold 20 mph or more for the century.