How do you define short, medium and long?

[roydyates]

For me, short is under 40 miles, medium is 40-80 miles, long is 80+

For my wife, short is under 30, medium is 30-50, long is 50+

What's your definition?

[donevwil]

15 years ago like you, today like your wife.

[avalonracing]

My current wife is short. My next will be long.

[fiamme red]

For me, short is under 40 miles, medium is 40-80 miles, long is 80+

For my wife, short is under 30, medium is 30-50, long is 50+

What's your definition?It depends on how hilly the ride is. A flat 70-mile club ride with four hours of riding time is much shorter than a 70-mile ride on dirt backroads in the mountains with 6,000 feet of climbing.

[FlashUNC]

I go anaerobic leaving my house.

Everything is long.

[tch]

15 years ago like you, today like your wife.

+1

[akelman]

I go anaerobic leaving my house.

For me it's lifting the bike down from its hook. I usually stop then, rest, have a beer or two, and then finish my workout by lifting the bike back onto its hook. If I can get all of that done in under an hour, I mark my daily log "INTENSE" or "EPIC".

[rugbysecondrow]

How do you define short, medium and long?

Shouldn't you be asking your wife this question?


All jokes aside, anything under an hour is short, 1-2.5 medium, 2.5+ long.

I just don't have time for long bike rides and if I do I would rather do something else. Riding is fun and all, but if I can ride and play softball with the kids and make breakfast and run and go swimming with the family and lift weights and go to the playground and work around my wifes activities and do .... then that is much more fullfilling then spending all day or weekend on the bike. This is why I quit golfing, I just don't want to spend 5 hours doing the activity.

For me, 30 miles is the best distance for a ride. Leave the house around 630, home by 830 to make pancakes for the kids.

It is very gratifying.

[MattTuck]

Short: < μ - σ
μ - σ < Medium < μ + σ
Long: > μ + σ

[tuxbailey]

Tall, Grande, and Venti

[67-59]

For me, short is under 40 miles, medium is 40-80 miles, long is 80+

For my wife, short is under 30, medium is 30-50, long is 50+

What's your definition?

If my wife was a cyclist, I suspect my definitions would be like yours.

But she isn't ("you're always gone so long"), so they're more like your wife's.

[Lewis Moon]

15 years ago like you, today like your wife.

+1 too, but hills and speed also have to be factored in.

[Mr Cabletwitch]

How do you define short, medium and long?

Shouldn't you be asking your wife this question?


All jokes aside, anything under an hour is short, 1-2.5 medium, 2.5+ long.

I just don't have time for long bike rides and if I do I would rather do something else. Riding is fun and all, but if I can ride and play softball with the kids and make breakfast and run and go swimming with the family and lift weights and go to the playground and work around my wifes activities and do .... then that is much more fullfilling then spending all day or weekend on the bike. This is why I quit golfing, I just don't want to spend 5 hours doing the activity.

For me, 30 miles is the best distance for a ride. Leave the house around 630, home by 830 to make pancakes for the kids.

It is very gratifying.


Couldn't have said it better myself. I used to try and ride 4-5 hours at least once a week. Now if I get out for 2 hours in a clip once a week I'm lucky. Usually my ride end up being about an hour and a half. I started running because I couldn't find the time to ride the kind of hours I need to get my weight down. Between having a 3 year old, running my family business and my wife training for a half iron man I take what I can get.

[br995]

For me, short is under 40 miles, medium is 40-80 miles, long is 80+
What's your definition?
Same.

This has been an off year, but in years past I would consider 35 miles a 'quick' after-work style ride. 60-80 was if I didn't have all day on the weekends, and 100+ was if I the weather was nice and I had no obligations. I still think that way, but my riding this season has shown that's not quite as true as it used to be....

[donevwil]

+1 too, but hills and speed also have to be factored in.

True, I've always been too mileage focused. Duration usually ends up being a pretty good barometer. Four hours of hills and four hours of flats yield far different mileages and similar levels of exhaustion.

[rustylion]

I use KJs because it takes into account effort, mileage and terrain (elevation). KJs are indicative of the training stress on the body, i.e., the effort.

Short = 1000 KJs
Medium = 2000 KJs
Long = 3000K KJs

The amount of time or the miles on the bike will vary.

For me, short is under 40 miles, medium is 40-80 miles, long is 80+

For my wife, short is under 30, medium is 30-50, long is 50+

What's your definition?

[T.J.]

I use KJs because it takes into account effort, mileage and terrain (elevation). KJs are indicative of the training stress on the body, i.e., the effort.

Short = 1000 KJs
Medium = 2000 KJs
Long = 3000K KJs

The amount of time or the miles on the bike will vary.

Yup, its how I track my workload. When I first starts riding it was all about miles, then all about time. now KJ's is where its at for me. I can burn more KJ's in a hour long crit than a 3 hr lazy ride

[Steve in SLO]

Kids and other obligations have made my definitions this:

Regular: 25-35 mi

Kids at school; wife is busy: 36-45 mi

Everybody else is out of town: >45 mi

Frankly, after having ridden for 35+ years I now usually opt for Regular then some high level tennis or some guitar speedwork.

[christian]

Short can handle about 27t, medium 32t, long a triple.

[bikingshearer]

Short ride = I feel pretty good and everyone else finishes up to 30 minutes ahead of me.

Medium ride = I feel okay and everyone else finishes 30-60 minutes ahead of me.

Long ride = I wonder whose stupid idea this was and everyone else finshes 60+ minutes ahead of me.

[slidey]

Time on bike strikes me as the optimal way to go about defining length of a ride.

(0,2]: short
(2,3.5]: medium
>3.5: long


All jokes aside, anything under an hour is short, 1-2.5 medium, 2.5+ long.

[slidey]

I'm glad you brought this up. I was contemplating asking a related Q about cals expended. So here goes:

Does the #cals (kJ) expended by a body depend on the weight of the body as well? I.e. Keeping route, bike + equipment, and time taken to complete the route constant is it possible to complete the same ride with fewer cals expended, if only weight of rider reduces?
Consequently is this relationship a directly proportional relation?

I use KJs because it takes into account effort, mileage and terrain (elevation). KJs are indicative of the training stress on the body, i.e., the effort.

Short = 1000 KJs
Medium = 2000 KJs
Long = 3000K KJs

The amount of time or the miles on the bike will vary.

[Steve in SLO]

Slidey: yep:

Calories Burned = [(Age x 0.2017) -- (Weight x 0.09036) + (Heart Rate x 0.6309) -- 55.0969] x Time / 4.184

Reference: http://www.braydenwm.com/cal_vs_hr_ref_paper.pdf

[rustylion]

This is correct.

but, please know that most software captures training data (my favorites are poweragent and trainingpeaks.com) automatically translate your data using this alogarithm. There will be some variability in results because human physiology is infinitely variable and assumptions have to be made in order to produce standardized software. But, the statistical deviations will be the same for the same user meaning what you see on the screen may differ a bit from your reality but the difference will be standardized across all your data stream. You will always get a relative look at how you are training and improving...

Geez, as I read my own post, it sounds way too complicated. It's not.

Thanks.

Slidey: yep:

Calories Burned = [(Age x 0.2017) -- (Weight x 0.09036) + (Heart Rate x 0.6309) -- 55.0969] x Time / 4.184

Reference: http://www.braydenwm.com/cal_vs_hr_ref_paper.pdf

[TPetsch]

For a daily ride:

40-50k
75k
100k

[slidey]

Ahh...cool! Thanks :)

Slidey: yep:

Calories Burned = [(Age x 0.2017) -- (Weight x 0.09036) + (Heart Rate x 0.6309) -- 55.0969] x Time / 4.184

Reference: http://www.braydenwm.com/cal_vs_hr_ref_paper.pdf


I understand you quite well...thanks for mentioning this though.

This is correct.

but, please know that most software captures training data (my favorites are poweragent and trainingpeaks.com) automatically translate your data using this alogarithm. There will be some variability in results because human physiology is infinitely variable and assumptions have to be made in order to produce standardized software. But, the statistical deviations will be the same for the same user meaning what you see on the screen may differ a bit from your reality but the difference will be standardized across all your data stream. You will always get a relative look at how you are training and improving...

Geez, as I read my own post, it sounds way too complicated. It's not.

Thanks.

[firerescuefin]

Short can handle about 27t, medium 32t, long a triple.

The more of your posts I read...the more I think we share DNA from about 10 generations ago. :)

[bluesea]

Short can handle about 27t, medium 32t, long a triple.


Short for me runs from 27t to 29t.;). There's no guaranty I won't be riding med. in a few years.