Fast Running Blog
October 31, 2024, 05:01:01 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: SMF - Just Installed!
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register FAST RUNNING BLOG  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
  Print  
Author Topic: Mileage - running vs. biking  (Read 31133 times)
Katie Aldridge
Lurker

Posts: 4


WWW
« on: May 13, 2008, 05:47:52 am »

Okay, yes, I am posing this question mainly because I like being on top of the mileage board.
Is it fair to post your biking mileage on the mileage board of a RUNNING Log? Could there be a separate entry for "alternative exercise" which tracks those other miles but keeps them separate from the activity that really counts?
Logged
Adam R Wende
Frequently Posting Member
****
Posts: 325


WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 13, 2008, 06:18:56 am »

I have to second Katie. I'm all for the importance of cross-training but I've ridden centuries before. So unless you want to start seeing the mileage board top 500 miles per week I would drop this feature or come up with an alternate board for total time exercised.
Logged
Jon Allen
Cyber Boltun
*****
Posts: 1150



WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 13, 2008, 07:14:31 am »

I will admit that I agree.
Logged
Sasha Pachev
Administrator
Cyber Boltun
*****
Posts: 1546



WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 13, 2008, 08:30:15 am »

We have to depend on the individual's ability to properly count his mileage. If somebody has a just_miles template and decides to count his biking miles at face value he will be high on the mileage board and there is nothing we can do other than sending him a message. If you are bothered by somebody being above you on the mileage board due to improper accounting, send him a private message.
Logged
Adam R Wende
Frequently Posting Member
****
Posts: 325


WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 13, 2008, 08:45:00 am »

Sasha, The people are logging their mileage properly. For some reason the mileage board is counting cross-training mileage toward total mileage...
Logged
Michelle Lowry
Frequently Posting Member
****
Posts: 478


WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 13, 2008, 08:57:58 am »

I would think that we would suggest tracking crosstraining mileage as what the running equivalent would be.  For example, Benn rode 30 miles yesterday and it took him 2 hours.  He is injured and doing his best to stay fit.  He should probably count that as 14 miles, or what he could run in those two hours.  This isn't an issue for those who do elliptical or stair stepper for crosstraining, if you go by minutes then convert to miles.  We don't want to downplay that he did do two hours of exercise though.  I think cross training miles should be included in the total miles for the mileage board, but not allow biking one mile to be equivalent to running 1 mile.  Those who are injured are punished enough by having to do cross training.  Most of us don't chose to do much of it.
Logged
Adam R Wende
Frequently Posting Member
****
Posts: 325


WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 13, 2008, 09:12:25 am »

Michelle, Don't get me wrong. I agree why add insult to injury. Also, I agree that cross-training is VERY important, though I am one who has not done it since college. However, I think for some of us (me included) we are curious were total running mileage puts you in the "grand scheme" of things. Specifically, I find it difficult to compare apples and oranges. I think it would be fine to have TWO total boards one for miles run one for exercise done (with whatever conversion people agree on). I think the lifting that Paul and others do should be looked at as well and I don't know how you would even begin to convert it to mileage. So I propose a 1) Running only mileage board and 2) Total time training board.
Logged
Josse
Frequently Posting Member
****
Posts: 365


WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 13, 2008, 09:18:15 am »

I always struggle with this one.  I don't mind counting crosstraing as mileage when I am injured but I would like it seperate from my running miles.  I like to know what I have ran without minusing my crosstraining.  As for converstion I count 10 minutes of crosstraining is = to 1 miles of running.
Logged
Benn Griffin
Posting Member
***
Posts: 194



WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 13, 2008, 09:32:57 am »

Hey everyone. Sorry everyone for causing stress with the mileage board. The last thing I want is to cause a revolt because I was careless and didn't even think to convert my miles in the first place. After reading a few articles where there have been various disputes about what correlates a biked mile to a mile run, I've decided that for my purposes .33 repeating will work. As it is extremely hilly terrain here, with usually 2 hills per mile, I don't think the 4:1 ratio is representative of my effort. A lot of triathletes use .3 when converting, but I noticed a lot of them also do a lot of flat riding or stationary bike riding which is much easier than actually scaling the hills in real life. In addition, since we have wind and such to take into account I think it's pretty good to use 3 miles biked = 1 mile ran? Let me know if I need to change something further.

Again, I truly am sorry for causing any problems. Your arguments are legit as I'm not even a runner right now. I didn't even realize until Michelle made that comment that the xt miles actually count in the overall running miles. Sorry guys and gals. Hope my conversion helps.

Benn

"Truckin' like the Doo Daa Man"
Logged
Jon Allen
Cyber Boltun
*****
Posts: 1150



WWW
« Reply #9 on: May 13, 2008, 09:34:44 am »

Maybe we should convert everything into swimming meter equivalent, since those are the slowest miles.  That way, the triathletes would look better...
Logged
Paul Petersen
Cyber Boltun
*****
Posts: 891



WWW
« Reply #10 on: May 13, 2008, 09:51:18 am »

Did I miss something? Do we get awards now for our mileage board rankings?
Logged
Josse
Frequently Posting Member
****
Posts: 365


WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 13, 2008, 09:55:16 am »

Did I miss something? Do we get awards now for our mileage board rankings?
Ya didn't you hear top runner for the week get a bag of my delicious, hearty 9-grain ceral.
Logged
Adam R Wende
Frequently Posting Member
****
Posts: 325


WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 13, 2008, 09:56:17 am »

Paul, No. But I do think we should get gold stars.
Logged
Paul Petersen
Cyber Boltun
*****
Posts: 891



WWW
« Reply #13 on: May 13, 2008, 10:11:14 am »

Paul, No. But I do think we should get gold stars.

I think number of message board posts is way more important than number of miles run. That's why I've got three gold stars under my name.
Logged
Jon Allen
Cyber Boltun
*****
Posts: 1150



WWW
« Reply #14 on: May 13, 2008, 10:59:10 am »

Quote
I think number of message board posts is way more important than number of miles run. That's why I've got three gold stars under my name.

Hey, I just noticed that I have 4 stars- Cool!  Apparently I am the only "Sr. Member" on the discussion board, outranked only by Sasha.  It is glaringly apparent to any who know me that this rank is not based on age, knowledge, good looks, prowess, speed, humor, or meaningful substance in my posts.  Therefore, it must be based on eating ability!  But I won't complain and will take the stars from whatever source I can!  After all, I did put down 3 bowls of salad, 4 breadsticks, and every last bit of my Shrimp Primavera at Olive Garden last night.  Yummy. (By the way, I really do highly recommend the primavera- delicious, big portion, lots of shrimp and veggies)

Either that, or the stars are based on the amount of time I waste, er, spend, on the forum during the day...

Paul, I'll trade you 2 of my stars for half your running ability!
« Last Edit: May 13, 2008, 11:09:04 am by Jonathan Allen » Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!