Originally Posted by
DnvrFox
long slow distance or long steady distance?? I have seen (and heard argued) both ways. In the latest issue of Bicycling, they quote Friel as saying "slow" - but I have read arguments pointing to "steady"
"Slow" is a funny (ha, ha) term in cycling, since it's relative, same with "fast." What's slow to one person will have the next person dropping off their wheel. That's why people have started saying "steady," which is kind of the same thing, because the real operative word in that phrase is "long." So it's a pace you can hold for say, 4+ hours without becoming overly tired, meaning you could do it again tomorrow. There's a lot to that. But it's not necessarily what we would all agree is slow. Perhaps the best way to relate is that it would be one's touring effort level. For sure when we come back from a bike tour, we are noticeably stronger yet well rested.