It's not the miles, but the elevation

[SuperHans123]

I focus on cycling.
And if there happens to be a hill in the way, I try to pedal up it but if I get too snacked, I unashamedly get off and push.

 

[400bhp]

calculated the following way:
VAM = (metres ascended x 60) / Minutes it took to ascend

A standard unit term with the same meaning is Vm/h, vertical metres per hour; the two are used interchangeably.

The relationship between VAM and relative power output is expressed as follows:

Relative power (Watts/kg) = VAM (metres/hour) / (Gradient factor x 100)
This gradient factor ranges between 2.6 for a gradient of 6% and 3.1 for a gradient of 11%. To work out the gradient factor take 2 + (% grade/10)
1800+ Vm/h: Lance Armstrong.
1650-1800 Vm/h: Top 10 / Tour de France GC or mountain stage winner.
1450-1650 Vm/h: Top 20 / Tour de France GC; top 20 on tough mountain stage.
1300-1450 Vm/h: Finishing Tour de France mountain stages in peloton
1100-1300 Vm/h: The Autobus Crew

Yes I understand all that but it’s not something the pros use to measure work done. The above is more or less a weighting factor to judge comparisons of different efforts up different climbs, specifically ignoring the use of power metrics. It’s not very scientific.

If they use anything then it’s Training Stress Score or a variant of it. Essentially which looks at power and time.

 

[SuperHans123]

My head would fry if I was thinking about all this crap every time I go out on my bike.