I mention in another post that if a person is in reasonable physical shape, he/she could ride a century (162 kms). There seems to be a lot of discussion in that other post about the need to build up a base before riding a century, and I contend that if a person is in reasonable physical shape, he/she has built up a base, although he/she might not have done it through specific "training".


So, that brings me to a question ... how would YOU define "reasonable physical shape"?


I define "reasonable physical shape" as being able to walk 10,000 steps a day:

https://www.shapeup.org/10000steps.html
https://www.thewalkingsite.com/10000steps.html
https://www.10000steps.org.au/

and/or .....

...... being able to comfortably exercise in the sport of your choice for a minimum of 60-90 minutes a day - the recommended daily amount:

https://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/r...9/05_diet.html
https://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnew..._exercise.html
https://www.health.gov/dietaryguideli...mendations.htm

>> how would YOU define "reasonable physical shape"<<

Resting pulse of <45, body fat of <13%, low BMI.

NEVER ask a bike weenie this. I rode 60+ miles yesterday and ate a bowl of Rice Krispies and a grapefruit. I'm in full weight loss mode.

Next question.

It was pretty depressing last Saturday. I rode 107 miles, didn't eat or drink very much (two 20oz. Gatorades, a few cookies) and when I weighed myself afterwards I was HEAVIER. Gotta get rid of that stupid bathroom scale and ride some more : ). But my wife told me I look like a P.O.W. refugee the other day, so I may be getting there....

And anybody who thinks I have an eating disorder and will lose too much weight DON'T WORRY. I watch Domino's Pizza commercials on TV in November and gain 5lbs.

If you set the standard, I'm in trouble!

If that's all you're eating how do you even stay on the bike? And FYI, if you don't eat enough your body will actually go into starvation mode causing you to 1. put on weight or 2. if you do lose weight it will be muscle weight because your body will start to actually eat away at your muscle

Reasonable physical shape and being able to sit on a bicycle for 6-7 hours are entirely different things. My wife is in great shape, she runs 7 minute miles and has a great cardio system. However she couldn't sit on a bike for that length of time. Now I can ride all day but running down the street leaves me in pain and winded. If you suggest that just being in reasonable physical shape is all it takes to ride a bike 100 miles I disagree, there is some 'getting used to a bike' time involved.

Not to hijack the thread but you have a point. When my coach and I agreed that I should hit 148-150 for my last race I needed to lose 5 pounds. The diet he had me on was eating about the same calories but eat them in smaller meals more often. This kicked my system into high gear and I lost the weight rather easily.

Reasonable physical shape is relative to the individual and activity being described.

Example within cycling. When I was 19, I rode maybe 12-15 miles a couple times a week on my Cannondale hybrid. On a moment's notice I tagged along with my older brother and his friends and rode RAGBRAI on that Cannondale during the heat of July. A 500 mile week with no real 'training' was made possible because I was an active college student at the time and just knew I could do it. I'm 33 now. Could I just up and ride RAGBRAI w/o training? Probably, but not as well as if I put in some seat-time. Definitely is more fun when in shape!

Reasonable shape also needs to have a corollary that states that the reasonably in-shape individual is not going to try to go out and go beyond those physical limits. Ride a century? Sure, but at a moderate pace and with plenty of breaks built in. There's a big difference between racing a century and just riding a century. Either is a great accomplishment.

I think the definition of "reasonable shape" varies. Each person's definition will be different and the "shape" required will depend upon the type of event you're participating in. Personally, I think just about anyone can get out there and do a century without much training at all. You just go slow enough to prevent bonking and sore-muscles. Eat and drink sufficient amounts and you'll be able to do it. It's really a matter of how fast you want to go and just about anyone and everyone can do a century in 8-10 hours if they go slow.

Being in "top fitness" shape then is a different criteria that might be defined using:

- VO2 max
- power-generated at LT
- resting HR
- HR-recovery time
- average-speed at LT
- climbing-rate in ft/hr
- calories burned/hr
- etc. etc. etc.

Personally, I think if you're able to put out 200-250w and burn 750-calories+/hr continuously, you're in "reasonably good physically shape".

In regards to your other thread, I think it's more than possible to ride a century without a whole lot of training. But the event itself is more fun if you've prepared. Kind of like the SATs. Sure you can take them without having studied a day in your life, but you're not going to like the college you get into. (And yes we all know one or two geniuses who never studied ever and took the SATs hungover and bleeding and still got every question right - I'm talking about normal people.)

So it might be a good idea to get a few miles in your legs before doing a century. It's a more enjoyable ride if you prepare.

And as to reasonable shape. If you can walk or go hiking for a few miles, if you can play a pick up game of basketball without passing out, if you can run up stairs with ease, you're in reasonable shape IMHO.

I'd be interesting in hearing more about how this diet worked for you. I need to lose about 15 more lbs but it has been a bit slow. The first 15 were pretty easy as I may have mentioned in a related post.
How did you divide your meals and did your coach change the balance of carbs/protein/fat at all?

my system could use some kicking into high gear right now.

I didn't read the other post. My wife in no way could have ridden a century cold turkey and I consider her 'reasonable shape'.

I remember posting about what's equivalent to a marathon in cycling. Several said anyone can get on a bike and complete a century, few can complete a marathon without training. I call B.S. They are not equivalent or even close but I know many who could never climb on a bike and make a century.

It depends on one's perspective. A year ago at this time, I would have been thrilled if I could get on a bike and ride 10 miles comfortably. Last Saturday, turning around early on an organized hilly century was a major disappointment caused by my total lack of riding the month before, and I vowed to get back in reasonable shape.

Uuummmmm, you do realize that drinking 40oz of liquid over 107 miles isn't the smartest way to lost weight, right?

The doc said that because I'm in such "great" physical shape I didn't suffer any major injuries when I slammed into the pavement at 25 mph.

So the answer is: I don't know.

That's WAY less than one should drink on a long ride like that. At least a 16-20 oz bottle per hour of riding to prevent dehydration is standard....

+1 on that.

+1

Meaningless figures like resting HR vary too much.
The US military tests define fitness with some simple measures, such as heart rate decrease on resting.

+2, pro riders eat a lot after a stage to make up for the calories burned.

Just not eating is not a good way to lose weight. You need carb intake during activity, protein intake afterwards.

You have got to be the dumbest poster on this board.

I'd say that someone who can ride an Imperial century is in reasonable shape.

I saw some people in unreasonable physical shape do 163 miles this weekend.

If you've got legs with properly functioning joints (or in one guy's case, arms), and a good bit of willpower, it doesn't take much else.

I am still thinking on my answer, but just want to note: we need to make distinction between "no existing medical conditions" and shape. For example, paralympic hockey player probably (I am not sure) won't be able to ride Imperial century, but likely he/she is in "reasonable shape".

I think that many of the folk that inhabit this board probably have a skewed standard for "reasonable shape", simply because we are already at a standard of fitness far in excess of what I see as typical of the general population. The 10000 steps a day translates into about 5 miles a day, and I don't see that as any kind of a challenge at all. The 60-90 minutes is simply a matter of picking an intensity that I can maintain. (and for that duration, it would be a higher intensity than I usually ride). There are a lot of people out there who's idea of exercise is walking from the door to the car. They are some of the same ones that I see circling the parking lot at the fitness center to get a parking place near the door so they can get their workout in.

I know people, younger than myself, who are shocked when I say that I rode 80 miles this weekend, or that I'm planning for a 500 mile trip on the bike. They think I must be some kind of superman, when in fact I'm a balding, ponytailed, computer trainer who rides for fun, has no genetic gifts for athletic prowness, and started out being tuckered out after 5 miles. Now it takes 5 miles just to get the legs warmed up.

I think that the standards that Machka laid out are good for the general public, and I suspect that anybody that really tried to meet them would be more than capable as a recreational cyclist, traveling at a moderate speed. Racers are a special breed. Racing has always been about the highest level of performance, so if I compare myself to even a group of Cat 5 riders my fitness level is below theirs, but I would suspect that if you took that same group of riders and plotted them against the general population by age group / gender they would be in the 90+ percentile. Heck, I'm 5'8", 153 pounds and my BMI is in the lower 20 percentile for my age/gender group. Toss me in with a bunch of racers and I'd be the fat boy in the room.

Not really sure where I'm going with this, but I like to compare myself with where I was in the past as a measure of my fitness, not against others. I would love to see Americans take a more active role in their life, I really think that it would help improve the heath (and health care systems) of this nation, eliminate a lot of the drugs that are, IMHO, taken to compensate for the fact that we have a body that was designed to be active, and by not giving it what it needs we have to self medicate to cope.

Just my .02

Steve W.

Me? Century in 5 hrs.

I don't care for the 10,000 steps thing, I have a bike

For others who ride with me, or have been entrusted to my care and guidance, whether 10yrs old or 60, I tell them as a rough guideline, it is the ability to do a 40mile around 2.5hr ride and feel just fine for the rest of the day, to do other things.

I've also always work hard with them to ensure that all of their personal milestones are reached with some quality of work, and in a dignified manner, not walking with the bike, or throwing up at the side of the road, just to somehow 'get it over with'. I make sure they're not hardware crazy, ride well setup and checked equipment, always ride smart and well prepared, and have the wisdom and maturity to always enjoy staying in "reasonable physical shape", whatever it means to them.

I've stopped teaching them how to pee on the move, since it has nothing to do with staying in "reasonable physical shape".

I don't know what reasonable shape is anymore. 7 years in college kept me from ever exercising and now I'm happy if my legs recover from a 15 mile ride in 48 hours