"The 33"-Road Bike Racing - LSD Makes a Comeback?

"The available evidence suggests that combining large volumes of low-intensity training with careful use of high-intensity interval training throughout the annual training cycle is the best practice model for development of endurance performance."

http://sportsci.org/2009/ss.pdf

Lydiard was wrong, Leary was right? LSD is back in vogue? :eek:

This is going to make for a great BF food fight... :D

The argument (as I've heard it) isn't that LSD doesn't work, but rather that if you don't have 30 hours/week like most non-pros with jobs, then the hours you do have are better spent on SST and threshold work.

The article abstract sort of sets up a straw man in this regard. I don't think most people here would actually claim that "brief, high-intensity interval work is the only form of training necessary for performance optimization" as it says.

don't see any reason for a catfight. i don't think LSD (long steady distance) was ever out of vogue, except for among time limited amateur cyclists. if you have almost unlimited time to train (e.g. Pro), the LSD then progression to intensity is just about the only way to optimally train for long pro tour or pro continental length races.

for the rest of us mortals with normal time constraints i think the reason we can't / don't dedicate as much time to LSD as would be optimal is because given a limited training schedule (and honestly limited length races) the best way to maximize time in the saddle is to modify the traditional LSD load before intensity progression. that being said, we would be faster / stronger cyclists if we could follow the LSD progression.

for me, it seems the key is difference between what fits best for an amateur's lifestyle and race type vs. what has been proven to work at the highest levels (lots of early LSD and the luxury of 25+ hour training weeks! :eek: )

i'm sure we'll hear about cat 1 and 2 guys that people know who do just fine on x amount of limited hours. but ask how they would fare in (and train for) higher level races longer than local level races and i imagine you'd hear them mention how their training regimen would be different, longer and LSD based.

don't see any reason for a catfight. i don't think LSD (long steady distance) was ever out of vogue, except for among time limited amateur cyclists. if you have almost unlimited time to train (e.g. Pro), the LSD then progression to intensity is just about the only way to optimally train for long pro tour or pro continental length races.

for the rest of us mortals with normal time constraints i think the reason we can't / don't dedicate as much time to LSD as would be optimal is because given a limited training schedule (and honestly limited length races) the best way to maximize time in the saddle is to modify the traditional LSD load before intensity progression. that being said, we would be faster / stronger cyclists if we could follow the LSD progression.

for me, it seems the key is difference between what fits best for an amateur's lifestyle and race type vs. what has been proven to work at the highest levels (lots of early LSD and the luxury of 25+ hour training weeks! :eek: )

i'm sure we'll hear about cat 1 and 2 guys that people know who do just fine on x amount of limited hours. but ask how they would fare in (and train for) higher level races longer than local level races and i imagine you'd hear them mention how their training regimen would be different, longer and LSD based.

With the rise of the SST movement it has become fashionable to tag Endurance, or zone 2 rides in Coggan's scheme, as "junk" miles. So even those that have sufficient time to train, say 12-15 hours on order per week, will sometimes say riding z2 is a waste of time.

I think the "cat fight" begins when someone says that the average amateur would be better served riding the prescribed 80/20 mix of z2/HIT rather than riding predominantly > z3 for most of their training.

While I haven't read the entire article cover to cover, as I read the exec summary and conclusions at the end, it seemed as though the authors weren't just advocating 80/20 for pros and elite amateurs.

I don't think LSD and SST are mutually exclusive. That being said, I think LSD has a huge advantage over the non-LSD methods. It's called "base longevity." Or.. how long does the bottom end last. In PMC/power training terms, I think it should be the #1 modifier to the CTL time constant.

So my last three weeks of z2 have been wasted? Nooooo!!! :) Well, I've made a plan through Friel's Bible and I'm stickin' to it, just to see how it goes.

So my last three weeks of z2 have been wasted? Nooooo!!! :) Well, I've made a plan through Friel's Bible and I'm stickin' to it, just to see how it goes.

LOL, you and me both! as a 12-15 hour per week guy, my last 2 months of LSD have been wasted! my coach is wrong, he's a heretic, time to convert and join the "SST Movement" 11 (now 12) guys on bikeforums can't be wrong :rolleyes:

I think the primary issue with LSD for the average amateur, training less than 12-15 hrs/week, is they forget about the L and D and just go S.

In other words, a LSD schedule requires LONG DISTANCE days in order to force the desired adaptation. Going out for 2 hours at true LSD pace is completely useless, unless you're in a nearly untrained state. That same pace for 4-6 hrs can produce the kind of fatigue necessary of adaptation. Hence the trend towards SST type work for athletes with those kind of time constraints.

I spend a lot of time at LSD pace in November/December/beginning of January, but all those rides are 4+ hrs, and are part of a 18-25hr/week schedule. If I can't get that much time in, I'm more likely to hit a light tempo or even low SST pace for the duration.

2 hrs of LSD is a recovery ride in my book, not a training ride. Then again, I do fall into the 'elite amateur' category, so my races will tend to be longer than most on this board.

^^^^
That, and I don't fall into the "elite amateur" category.

So my last three weeks of z2 have been wasted? Nooooo!!! :) Well, I've made a plan through Friel's Bible and I'm stickin' to it, just to see how it goes.

I think the good news is that based on this new study your approach is validated.

ZeCanon, Boom! +1

I think the primary issue with LSD for the average amateur, training less than 12-15 hrs/week, is they forget about the L and D and just go S.

In other words, a LSD schedule requires LONG DISTANCE days in order to force the desired adaptation. Going out for 2 hours at true LSD pace is completely useless, unless you're in a nearly untrained state. That same pace for 4-6 hrs can produce the kind of fatigue necessary of adaptation. Hence the trend towards SST type work for athletes with those kind of time constraints.

I spend a lot of time at LSD pace in November/December/beginning of January, but all those rides are 4+ hrs, and are part of a 18-25hr/week schedule. If I can't get that much time in, I'm more likely to hit a light tempo or even low SST pace for the duration.

2 hrs of LSD is a recovery ride in my book, not a training ride. Then again, I do fall into the 'elite amateur' category, so my races will tend to be longer than most on this board

Hmm, not sure I see much LSD these days amongst amateurs based on my experiences racing/riding in NCal and SCal. Most cyclists that I observe get their "volume" through fast group rides (e.g., Spectrum Ride in NCAL or the Simi Ride in SCal), which rarely fall into the category of LSD, or Z2. IME most riders who put in moderate volume weeks (10-15 hours) probably ride too hard, with long 3-4 hour group rides at race-like intensities being the norm pretty much year round. So I see them going long distances very fast, not slow

Insofar as having to go for a long duration, =>4 hours to see adaptation I don't know if that's necessarily the case. Wouldn't it depend on where your current fitness baseline is?

What's interesting about the study is the authors say (on p. 46) that non-elite athletes could benefit from an 80/20, LSD/HIT program too. My guess is that because when you go hard you are able to go really hard because you're fresh, and when you go long and slow you can overload appropriately based on your current baseline of fitness and see adaptation.

Insofar as having to go for a long duration, =>4 hours to see adaptation I don't know if that's necessarily the case. Wouldn't it depend on where your current fitness baseline is?


This is the racing forum, I would expect that virtually everyone could do 2 hrs at LSD pace and feel just fine. Maybe 4 is high for some, but the point is that you need to ride long enough to put stress on your body, or else there is no point in walking out the door.

Agreed on the group rides - I participate in those as well. However, I still get plenty of long, low intensity days in during the fall and early winter. LSD has it's place for those riding lots of hours, if only because riding 25 hours of tempo+ per week would result in a seriously dead cyclist pretty quickly.

was this thread precipitated by the similar thread on Google Wattage?

The reason I am asking is because there seems to be a discrepancy about whether people are applying these training plans to :

a. the season as a whole

b. the off-season "base" period (meaning NOW)

I think we need to establish that part first before going further.

was this thread precipitated by the similar thread on Google Wattage?

The reason I am asking is because there seems to be a discrepancy about whether people are applying these training plans to :

a. the season as a whole

b. the off-season "base" period (meaning NOW)

I think we need to establish that part first before going further.

I'm not sure why its relevant but yes, I first caught wind of the study on the Wattage Forum. Also, why is it important to put this in the context of base vs. other times of the year before "going further"?

primarily because of the tendency for athletes to peak early when doing larger quantities of higher-intensity training. For reasons which seem self-evident, I personally would not want to peak in February. Hence, the idea of a steady diet of low-intensity higher-duration seems very applicable to the off-season.

It also correlates to the somewhat common belief that FTP gains made by "pushing up" (L4 intervals) may take longer to establish, but would result in a more stable change than those gains made by "pulling up" (L5 intervals and anaerobic).

Even with a somewhat regular application of L4 intervals, it seems to me that the base period should consist of a larger amount of low-intensity hours.

was this thread precipitated by the similar thread on Google Wattage?

The reason I am asking is because there seems to be a discrepancy about whether people are applying these training plans to :

a. the season as a whole

b. the off-season "base" period (meaning NOW)

I think we need to establish that part first before going further.

There was a line in the study claiming that 80-20 is applicable for the whole season. I believe that the type of high intensity efforts change as the season progresses.

primarily because of the tendency for athletes to peak early when doing larger quantities of higher-intensity training. For reasons which seem self-evident, I personally would not want to peak in February. Hence, the idea of a steady diet of low-intensity higher-duration seems very applicable to the off-season.

It also correlates to the somewhat common belief that FTP gains made by "pushing up" (L4 intervals) may take longer to establish, but would result in a more stable change than those gains made by "pulling up" (L5 intervals and anaerobic).

Even with a somewhat regular application of L4 intervals, it seems to me that the base period should consist of a larger amount of low-intensity hours.

One of the findings was that there was no demonstrable increase in power at vo2 when cyclists (Spanish U23 elites) shifted from a lower volume 80/20 program in the winter, to a higher volume, slightly higher intensity program in the spring. So insofar as "peaking" early was concerned that wasn't the case, despite the fact that the riders felt qualitatively fitter in the spring.

In regards to pushed-up FTP being more stable than pulled-up FTP I'm not sure what you mean.

Last, if I'm reading your third point correctly it seems as though you are validating based on your experience what the study put forward. But again it sounds like the authors are advocating the 80/20 approach year round, not just for base.

In regards to pushed-up FTP being more stable than pulled-up FTP I'm not sure what you mean.



Wattage has quite a lot of discussion on the matter. You might have to be creative with search terms though.

Wattage has quite a lot of discussion on the matter. You might have to be creative with search terms though.

I'm quite familiar w both approaches (push vs pull). I guess what I'm trying to understand is how/where your comment regarding the two approaches fits in regards to the findings of the study. Sorry, it may be that I'm a bit thick, but I missed your point.

I wouldn't draw any conclusions since the study's sample size is too small.

You guys don't ever just STFU and ride your bikes, do you?

You guys don't ever just STFU and ride your bikes, do you?

Look where that's got ya. :lol:

LSD Makes a Comeback?

worked for dock ellis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vUhSYLRw14).

worked for dock ellis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vuhsylrw14).

touchdown!!!!

worked for dock ellis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vUhSYLRw14).

Not seen that before. Amusing for sure.

Not seen that before. Amusing for sure.

amusing? my man, that was f'ing hilarious.

earlier in the day, "You put WHAT in my Gatorade?" was right below "LSD Makes a Comeback."

It gave me lols.

Hmm, not sure I see much LSD these days amongst amateurs based on my experiences racing/riding in NCal and SCal. Most cyclists that I observe get their "volume" through fast group rides (e.g., Spectrum Ride in NCAL or the Simi Ride in SCal), which rarely fall into the category of LSD, or Z2.

The ones you observe on fast group rides might be getting their volume through fast group rides. :rolleyes:

Presuming that this was a "volume" day. Of course you'd have to survey each one to find out. And because the ride isn't LSD for a Cat4, doesn't mean it's not LSD for a Cat 1.

Name some names that matter in NorCal on that ride (or the House of Pain, or whatever) then make a list of who isn't there. Then do a head count and compare it to the number of riders in the NCNCA.

The reality is you're using a small non-representative sampling to try to bolster your particular opinions regarding training.


IME most riders who put in moderate volume weeks (10-15 hours) probably ride too hard,

You're basing this on what?

You're basing this on what?

Ride too hard for what?

And because the ride isn't LSD for a Cat4, doesn't mean it's not LSD for a Cat 1.


Indeed. I do LSD rides with a cat 4 collegiate teammate every once in a while, but he sits behind me the whole ride. I mean literally every minute of it. Because I do LSD at about 3.5w/kg, and his FTP is around 3.8. Sitting behind me he's riding in about the same zone I am. The same is applicable to many of the early season group rides around here.

I'm doing LSD right now.

The ones you observe on fast group rides might be getting their volume through fast group rides. :rolleyes:

Presuming that this was a "volume" day. Of course you'd have to survey each one to find out.

Most people that I've ridden with put in their big volume days on the weekends. That's because most amateurs have jobs that get in the way of doing volume during week. I don't think I need a survey to come to that conclusion.


The reality is you're using a small non-representative sampling to try to bolster your particular opinions regarding training.

Ah, wrong. I put the survey out there for public consumption but it doesn't necessarily represent my views on training.


You're basing this on what?

My observations. I realize this is tough for you to accept because in your world your opinions are the only ones that matter. :rolleyes:

Ride too hard for what?

If you buy into the notion that you need to be rested to be able to go hard when its time to go hard my observation is most struggle to do the tougher efforts because they are always riding at near-race pace. That is, most don't get the recovery part of training right.

Again that's simply my observation watching riders over the years do most of their riding in group rides which tend to be simulated races.

I'm doing LSD right now.

EDIT: Ahhhh... I think you were making a funny... lol

Me too. Long STEADY Distance really works for me. I don't know what it is, but riding at lower intensities over the hilly terrain I have locally gets me in super good shape. I notice that I can stay aerobic at higher intensities instead of going anerobic (which means I can ride faster with less effort). It takes alot more effort to get me winded so something is working. I'm talking 60+ hours a month though and my heart rate does go into the zone 3s and 4s on occasion. I also steadily lose weight at this pace, opposed to going hard all the time. I tend to have to eat alot more to sustain the harder efforts AND to properly recover. Come middle of febuary, I'll be ready to up the intensity and cut back on the volume. Hopefully the bigger engine, better power to weight ratio AND longer base period will help me keep my form later in the season next year (be able to hold on to my peaks longer).

My observations. I realize this is tough for you to accept because in your world your opinions are the only ones that matter. :rolleyes:

I didn't offer an opinion. I asked a question. Vast difference.

You feel that the majority of people doing 10-15 hours a week are riding too hard. Are you basing this on their results? On their FTP gains or losses? Or just something you read? Clarify and justify.

Again, if you missed it the first time, I'm pointing out that you're going to a group ride with 1-2% of the total riders in NorCal or Socal. If you go on a fast group ride it's DEFACTO that the majority of people on the fast group ride are on a fast group ride. Expand.

I've been on the NorCal rides in question and there's only a few people that show up at the pointy end of the stick come race season. And I know several attendees that go several hours longer on Sunday and more than several racers that actually do their volume on the weekdays due to wanting to spend time with their kids on the weekends. Soccer/baseball dads. Or telecommuters. We have a "FatBoy" ride of up to six hours midweek during the day here here that draws a large number of folks.

If you're going to pontificate, be prepared to have me ask a few pointed questions. Try to answer them. We're all the better for it.

If you're going to pontificate

I'll leave that, and the lecturing to you. Not sure why you always have to be such a troll.

I'll leave that, and the lecturing to you. Not sure why you always have to be such a troll.

If lecturing is pointing out germane facts in contradiction or support of a premise, then yes, I suppose I was. I was also asking you to support comments you wrote with something other than "IME", a somewhat pedantic version of IMHO.

As far as the troll thing, I think that's what the OP was going for:


This is going to make for a great BF food fight... :D

Most of us have seen the LSD vs. SST vs WPOD (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kP8nGNbk7oQ&feature=related) debate run through here at least a dozen times. It's why the base threads haven't devolved into goo as of late. It's grown clear that there are zealots on either side and a bunch of moderates like myself that believe variables (age/cat/time/racing specialty) might best dictate the path to try.

Some of the comes from observation, some of it comes from trying to win TT, road race, and crit championships in the space of of 5 months.

But if you want to play "Dueling Studies" don't be the Ned Beatty character, stop squealing, and engage.

I'm doing LSD right now.

I'll talk you down. We love you man. The universe loves you. You are a perfect being.

Doc's freakin hysterical.

"I thought it was yesterday"

EDIT:

Doc WAS freakin hysterical. He's a little wierded out (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA5JwXK8R3M&NR=1) now.

Fashion trends take 20 yrs to recycle. Training theory seems to take about 6.

amusing? my man, that was f'ing hilarious.

Actually I typed f'ing hilarious, but then deferred to amusing, as admitting I LMAO may not go over to well in some circles.

But if you want to play "Dueling Studies" don't be the Ned Beatty character, stop squealing, and engage.

Reread my posts. You might eventually get it. I wasn't playing the role of the shill for LSD. Just putting the study out there.

Insofar as the Ned Beatty reference is concerned it sounds like you've had experience in that area so I'll leave the arse-farking to you.

Insofar as the Ned Beatty reference is concerned it sounds like you've had experience in that area so I'll leave the arse-farking to you.

Oh come on. Really? Now you're just making your own thread stupid

Oh come on. Really? Now you're just making your own thread stupid

And uncreative. Did not/did to is boring.


This is going to make for a great BF food fight... :D

And you're having a hissy at me because you got mustard on your new chiffon blouse?


If you buy into the notion that you need to be rested to be able to go hard when its time to go hard my observation is most struggle to do the tougher efforts because they are always riding at near-race pace. That is, most don't get the recovery part of training right.

Again that's simply my observation watching riders over the years do most of their riding in group rides which tend to be simulated races.

So: I do the occasional group ride. I train 10-15 hours a week and I struggle doing my tougher efforts. That might be because that's what intervals are for, especially shorter ones. If I go out to do 3 x 6 CP6 work I'll be lucky to make one in the ballpark. By your notionally qualified metric I'm not training right, though I don't think my results would support that conclusion.

If people are resting and then find it easy to do, say, their 5 minute intervals, they are doing intervals in duration only.

You were unclear as to whether they were trying to do intervals during the group ride, or at another time, but in any case your observations do not carry much underlying value, as they are based on a very small sampling.

Enlighten us as to what protocol you follow.

this year i've been adding 22 miles @LSD before and after a 52 mile (relatively fast) group ride. I haven't felt this strong at this time of the year before.

Indeed. I do LSD rides with a cat 4 collegiate teammate every once in a while, but he sits behind me the whole ride. I mean literally every minute of it. Because I do LSD at about 3.5w/kg, and his FTP is around 3.8. Sitting behind me he's riding in about the same zone I am. The same is applicable to many of the early season group rides around here.

Curious to know what your FTP is and how long these rides are. Seems to be some confusion (for me and on other forums) regarding exactly what Zone 1 is in his 3 zone system. Some seem to think it's <75% FTP (me included), and others think it's all the way up to 90%. I postulated that it was effective training for elite riders *if* they ride high volumes, in which case the volume/intensity is nearly all they could do on a daily basis.

November FTP is about 285w, or ~4.6w/kg. I spent most of my last race season around 4.85-4.9, peaked about 4.9-5w/kg. Goal for next year is 5.1w/kg, though I have a sprinter's power profile so I'm not sure that's possible.

I should correct myself: on my LSD rides, I shoot for 3.2-3.5 w/kg. That's 200-220w for me at the moment, and that is where the NP of the majority of my LSD rides tend to end up. 220w is currently 77% of my FTP, so I am spending most of my time in the upper end of Z2, based on Coggan's 7 zones. As FTP goes up, of course I adjust the watts accordingly.

Coggan's zones (as if you all haven't seen them already...):
Level 1: Active Recovery, less than 55% of FTP
Level 2: Endurance, 56-75% of FTP
Level 3: Tempo, 76-90% of FTP
Level 4: Threshold, 91-105% of FTP
Level 5: VO2 max, 106-120% of FTP
Level 6: Anaerobic Capacity, 121-150% of FTP
Level 7: Neuromuscular Power, more than 150% of FTP

Rides at that level are usually 3.5-6 hrs. The vast majority fall in the 3.5-4.5 range. I can ride all day at this power output, and still be able to do the same the next day assuming it was a steady effort (LT work with rest will often result in the same NP, but is obviously far more destructive). If I come home from 4 hrs with a NP much over 220, I know the next day is going to hurt. Lately I've been doing rides with 2 or so hrs in the 240-250 range, and the other 2 well below that so I end up in the same range at the end, but the physical toll still isn't too huge. I like these rides because I get bored going slow.

So yes, I make volume goals and adjust the intensity to a level that makes the workouts repeatable day after day. This year, most of my base will be spent with weeks in the 18-22 hr range. If I was training 10 hrs/week, you can be damn sure the intensities would be much, much higher. I think my approach, for someone who has the time and the motivation to hit those hours, is the most effective. Otherwise I wouldn't be doing it :)

I'm a huge advocate of SST work for time-crunched cyclists. I help out some of my CSU teammates who have either bigger school workloads, jobs, or just less motivation and I have lots of them on SST-based plans. Plus, C riders race crits that are like 35 minutes long. Their road races are 1:30. Why send them out on 4 hr rides when their race is so much shorter?

Like RX said, each approach is appropriate for certain indviduals, and no approach is appropriate for all. Anybody who claims otherwise is an idiot.

As FTP goes up, of course I adjust the watts accordingly.


I think this is something that many people miss, I certainly did until the last couple of seasons. As important is to adjust down when you're coming off a long break or a death spiral from racing far too long into the season. I even move it weekly when I go to altitude to reflect the adaptation period and drop in FTP even once you're adapted.

Ze, I hope your teammates appreciate the well thought out help you're providing.

My LSD rides (3+ hrs) tend to avg ~70% FTP, but normalized power tends to be in the 72-76% range.

But really... nothing needs be added to ZeCanon's last post. It's comprehensive. In fact, he and I appear to be training nearly identical methodologies, and our FTP (w/kg) are pretty much in line with each other.

Plus, C riders race crits that are like 35 minutes long. Their road races are 1:30. Why send them out on 4 hr rides when their race is so much shorter?




Because massive gains in endurance leads to better efficiency and greater ability to handle higher workloads (as long as recovery is taken as seriously).

Look at example after example of top athletes who race short, but train long.

- endurance based trackies
- swimmers
- rowers
- middle distance runners

I say send those athletes that have the time, onto as long of rides as they feel okay with. 4hrs, 5 hrs, 6 hrs, more. Keep it on the easy side mostly and watch most of them find another level within a brief period.