I guess Dan is revising his aerobic point system for future camps. I agree that vertical feet need to be taken into account. Everybody knows that a century with 1,500 feet of climbing and one with 6,000ft of climbing are two very different things!
Case in point, last week I rode 112 for the camp but it was along the coast up to Big Sur which had 7500ft of climbing, very different from riding 112 in the IM Florida course. So it would have been wiser to make those 112 flat land points and I would have been much less wiped out the next day.
I would suggest to have a point for every 100-200ft climbed on the bike and 2 points for every 100-200ft on the run. I think Dan suggested 1 point for every 1000 ft but that is too little. That would encourage accumulation of “flatland” points instead of vertical. What you want is to have the guy in North Dakota get about the same points as the guy in California for the same effort. And then if you go both long and high then you get bonus points for obvious reasons.
While I might agree in concept, I disagree in practice. What you are doing is taking a simple, easy to use system and complicating to the point where it loses it’s utility. While it is technically maybe more accurate (and I emphasize maybe) the utility value of the added accuracy is questionable considering the added time it will take to arrive at it.
For example, I used to be a cost accountant. We would have managers disagree with us on the system of allocating overhead costs, say for heating and cooling. We always used square footage of the shop area. They would argue that some shops used more or less heat or cooling and were unfairly penalized or rewarded in their bottom line. But, our point was that it would cost the firm more to measure the actual difference than it was worth.
One could also argue that a run at 7:00/mile should get more points than a run at 8:00/mile, or a run at 80% of VO2Max should get more points than a run at 70% of VO2Max. Also, on those bike rides, do you count “gross” climbing or “net” climbing? Shouldn’t you subtract points for coasting downhill?
My point is–I use the system and I like it. It is easy to use and I enter the data into a spreadsheet and print out a graph monthly showing S/B/R points, total points, and running average total points. Don’t screw it up by overcomplicating it.
Or, I guess I could say–Go ahead and change it an I’ll keep using the old system.
It should be based on time in the saddle, with an intensity adjustment. Any ride is only as hard as you want to make it. 2 hours climbing can be easier than 2 hours on the flats – you could just choose to ride easier on the climbs.
Owners of power meters can load data into CyclingPeaks and get a Training Stress Score, which takes time and intensity into account.
swimming should = 1 point for every 200 yds. currently one gets four points for running a mile and 5 points for swimming 500yds, both of which take roughly the same amount of time. swimming is physically less demanding or punishing than running.
thoughts?
I don’t think swimming is any less demanding than running. Probably less punishing, as it’s non-impact. What if someone’s a really bad swimmer, should they get one point for every 50 yds? Or should we lower the points for biking because it isn’t as punishing as running?
I think since running a mile and swimming 500 yds take roughly the same amount of time, they should get roughly the same amount of points. And they do, so I’m happy.
I kind of hate to see this system get screwed around with too much. The beauty of it is its simplicity.
It should be based on time in the saddle, with an intensity adjustment. Any ride is only as hard as you want to make it. 2 hours climbing can be easier than 2 hours on the flats – you could just choose to ride easier on the climbs.
Owners of power meters can load data into CyclingPeaks and get a Training Stress Score, which takes time and intensity into account.
Dude, there is always a minimal effort required to get up a hill, specially the longer and steeper ones. The minimal effort to ride on the flats is much less than the minimal effort to ride in the hills. The only way that 2 hours of climbing will be easier than 2 of riding is if you are hammering on the flats and if you do than you can also hammer in the hills and that would be harder.
For the record (not that anybody asked), but I think the point system is fine exactly as it is. If you did a lot of climbing, or if you swam/biked/ran at a higher intensity than normal, you can note that in your log/spreadsheet. And weight training is too variable to add to the point system. I’ve done plenty of 2 hour weight sessions in my day that were really 45 minute sessions 'cause I stood around and visited with my friends in the gym.
The system is fine. It does what it is supposed to do, which is offer a way to keep our training balanced.
I oppose any changes to the system. But it doesn’t really matter – like another poster said, I’m going to use the “old” system no matter what changes are made.
Key points: total elevation gain of 300’ while running earns an extra point total elevation gain of 1000’ on the bike gains you an extra point 1 point for every 5 minutes spent in the weight room, but you’ve got to spend at least 20 minutes in a session to rack up any points. A one-hour session would give you 12 points, but that assumes very little lollygagging. These points assume a hard-core weight session. Extra point for a high intensity session Yoga gets ziltch
“While I might agree in concept, I disagree in practice. What you are doing is taking a simple, easy to use system and complicating to the point where it loses it’s utility.”
I couldn’t agree more. The whole reason I adopted this system in my workout log was utter simplicity, so that at a glance I could see how much I completed during a week. Since I can’t find my slide rule, I’m sticking with the old system.