Bacciagalupe

That's not necessarily due to bar height. Try adjusting the bar angle.

Also keep in mind that while you're riding a high volume, some fit issues won't show up with 3 or 4 hours on the bike. Things change after half a day on the bike....


Without knowing your other proportions (e.g. arm and torso length), this isn't very helpful.

Neither is getting a fit over the Internets. I'd say a pro fit will be worth it, as it may head off future problems.

Richard Cranium

Forget actually defining "lsd" - what it really means is - "take a trip." Keep moving - use it of lose it..........

Part of the reason these training "acronyms" take off is that they usually do "work" for somebody - some of the time......

Most of you already know these things - why even care to confuse a topic more.

"Intelligent" exercise routine are based of individual status - not preconceived or standard intensity level.

In the case for attempting 1000 or miles in a month - and again --- in general - this means taking the ride easy enough to keep going - but fast enough to have time to complete the daily goal.

For the rest of you - if you've already been there and done that (the 100 mile thing) - then of course you can get all "RC" on people like me ---- tsk tsk tsk ...

Randolfo

The LSD I was introduced to in the 80's was Lysergic Acid Diethylamide. So, when I saw the header I thought, "Is someone really asking about this?" I took a peak out of curiousity, and was relieved that it was a training term. Glad I looked. Got some good info.

Bacciagalupe

Just remember, Albert Hoffman first experienced the full psychedelic properties of LSD whilst riding his bicycle home from work. I believe it was a short journey, but I'm sure to him it felt like a very long ride.

Randolfo

I can imagine. I am sure I would end up lost.

venturi95

Back when I was a youngster and concerned with training techniques *slides thumbs under suspenders*, we put the long in LSD. It was (and is) the best way to build a foundation without stressing anything in the early season. Go for at least 80 miles on an unladen bike.

Homeyba

80 miles is long??? I think that puts the short in long...in fact, that's barely getting warmed up.

Machka 

I found one of the benefits of doing a CAM challenge (Century-a Month challenge) was that it kept up a decent base throughout the year.

venturi95

OK, I'll bite... What would you consider long? Mind you we are talking about a training ride, not go out and destroy yourself ride

njkayaker

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_slow_distance

https://running.competitor.com/2013/0...distance_64958

https://beta.active.com/cycling/artic...w-distance-lsd

Apparently, not. You could argue that "steady" is better word than "slow".

Since people are already discussing it, it makes some sense to know what it means (or what it is referring to).

Machka 

For the purposes of this forum, a long distance starts at 100 miles.

When we're training for long randonnees, 24-hour races, the RAAM, etc., 100 mile rides are training rides. Back when I was at my peak (2002-2005), I was riding 100+ mile rides almost every month, and during the summer, it was just about every weekend.


I need to get back into that again!!

Machka 

"Steady" is a relatively recent adaptation in the cycling world, and is, I think, a better word.

As I mentioned earlier, "slow" implies barely turning the pedals, and barely raising the heart rate. And that isn't going to have much benefit.

"Steady" on the other hand, implies a faster speed, a bit of effort, but not going all out.

njkayaker

Yes, as I said, steady might be a better word but it has problems too. LSD isn't going steady at a fast (racing) pace.

LSD (long, slow distance) refers to a particular training technique. That's why people need to know the definition of it to discuss it.

People shouldn't expect the acronym to provide enough information about what to do (for example, "barely turning the pedals, and barely raising the heart rate").

It might have be better to be "LDSMP" (Long Distance at a Steady, Moderate-Pace) but people pick a particular acronym because it is "cute" (thus, the "joke" in the thread title).

"Steady" could be fast or slow (there's no speed in it). The tortoise was steady and slow.

Bacciagalupe

If anyone is interested, here's a study that compared long slow distance (running at HR Zone 3), running at LT, and two types of intervals, 3 days a week, over a period of 8 weeks.

The LSD and LT groups basically didn't budge. The intervals groups significantly improved both VO2Max and and cardiac stroke volume.



Summary: https://www.zone5endurance.com/?p=968
Full text: https://www.fysio.no/content/download...ensity2007.pdf


For those who really want to wonk out, here's a more in-depth discussion of various training studies from the past ~10 years. The authors of this one believe that the optimal training technique is a ratio of 80% low intensity, 20% high intensity. AFAIK this has become the dominant view for endurance training.

https://www.sportsci.org/2009/ss.htm

Richard Cranium

So are we arguing about the original post's content? If the original post is about 1000 miles in a month - without any reference to the average speed or time spent - then there is no basis for suggesting any training. Just ride - ride long enough to do it.

Geez - why do i - oh nevermind...

Null66

Great for weight loss, particularly visceral fat.
Great for lipid profile.
Great for acclimating to saddle time.

Great for people who measure a ride by Smiles per hour...

Bacciagalupe

Actually, exercise doesn't wind up helping much with weight loss. (https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/1...ght-loss/?_r=0)


I don't see how or why periodization / intervals 1-2x a week, combined with a long ride at pace (again, the current standard training method) would not do the same.


Sure. Well. Maybe. Or not.

Enjoyment of long slow distances will depend a great deal on what one enjoys. If you like doing the same thing over and over, without improving -- which some people do -- then yes. If you're touring, you might not want to pyramids twice a week.

Others will find it frustrating or numbing to ride in high volumes without any improvement. Or, might be in for a rude shock if they do a hilly century that repeatedly pushes them into the red zone.

Homeyba

I was somewhat flippant with my response. I don't consider it a long ride until you're going well over 200kms (120miles). Some of us live in areas where we really have no off season but I really never bought into the "building" base theory. I've seen people successfully do 1200ks with effectively no base. A couple examples are one guy with less than a 1000 total miles (in Florida no less) and another who rode no miles other than the qualifiers in the year prior to PBP.

From my experience, the only thing "base" miles are good for is earning your butt. When I train I do minimal rides over 100 miles. The majority of my training rides are between 30-60 miles, even for 500 miles races or RAAM. I've always found that smart training is better than long training. Sitting on your bike soft pedaling for 7 hours to do 80 miles is (for me) a waste of time. Unless I'm planing on smelling the roses.

Null66

Actually,
Newspapers are not the place to get decent source material. I used to read Muscular Development, great source of health information if you can get by that a high percentage of their target audience uses PED's. What really set them apart is the discussion of studies from all over the world, not just US or EU. They site studies directly. ubMed is good, though a lot of the source material is behind their pay wall. But even the abstracts can be quite useful.

Those test results are a "journalist" over simplifying things. A number of times the headline is not supported by the text in the body... Pretty much have to read the source studies to 1) see if properly designed, 2) what population 3) actual conditions tested.

The failure to lose weight studies (there were several) all had some or all these characteristics. Untrained people, steady state cardio, low intensity short duration, and short periods (weeks to a couple months) and all did not hold calories constant. So yep, people who can't work hard, can't sustain any intensity, and work out for very limited time (think 3x week at 30 minutes) in the short run, can't out run their forks. A very reassuring message for those not wishing to change their ways. However, untrained people would be lucky to burn an apple or 2, 3 times a week grand total <600. Not much. Heck, Garmin's calories estimates come in at about 3k for me in my commute.

Long duration low intensity (around 4 hours) was show in several tests with both moderately fit and fit individuals to induce fat loss. Even better visceral fat (which present the highest risk).

Interval training, was shown to have significant improvement in fitness markers: such as BP, resting pulse, rate of recovery of pulse, power output, muscle development. It showed a lot of improvement in bio-markers such as lipid profiles and blood sugar control and insulin levels. Some fat loss (not necessarily weight) and minor visceral fat loss.

--- Biology is quite complex, and in many cases perverse.
What "we think" is true, or common wisdom is mostly folk lore.
Scientific method is a great way of actually knowing.
Think eating fat make you fat.
or
Dietary cholesterol as a bad thing...

Intervals are awesome. They are the best and fastest way of improving performance. They are the best way of increasing fitness. There are several variants of intervals. They have very significant health benefits.They were shown to create the most health benefits per time spent then anything else studied so far, and in the most diverse populations. So far I have not seen 1 interval type pattern discredited.

Now long ride at pace? well that's quite amorphous. Long? some people think 7 miles, some 70... Pace? even more variable.

long duration low intensity studied was ~>2 hours and ~>4 hours. Intensity was held roughly an easy conversational pace. I'm sure your conversational pace is much faster then mine... But it is a good and accessible measure of effort relative to persons capabilities. ~>4 hours showed much better results in the visceral fat loss and lipid profiles then ~>2. Even when frequency of `>2 was doubled so total work load weekly was constant.

Smiles per hour...
You might be amazed what hauling a loaded bike up a hill will do to you. Especially, after a few miles. Hills are natures intervals. What's your definition of improvement? Seems like you have a narrow definition in mind?

njkayaker

That is a poor article.

unterhausen

I'm sure we are all different, but I can't lose weight without exercise. And I really don't do all that well unless I count calories too.

There is a long-standing tradition in "journalism" and "science" where people get a lot of attention when they publish studies that are counter-intuitive about diet, health, and exercise. Like the ones that say exercising a lot will shorten your lifespan, dieting will make you gain weight, etc. I'm not sure when it started, but it's endemic nowadays. And they aren't doing anyone any favors by publishing this misinformation. I understand the impulse, you simply couldn't get an article published that tells the truth about this, and it would be a lot of work given how much self-serving nonsense there is out there.

jeffpoulin

If the goal is to reach 1000 miles in a month, then simply aim for an average of 40 miles/day, 6 days/week. It may help to have periodic rest days in case you have social obligations, are not feeling well, or if the weather is just terrible. Nearly all of my rides are in the 30-50 mile range and I reach 1000 miles/month about 3 or 4 times per year just by getting in about 25 rides/month.

As for changes to saddle height or position, I find it takes me about 300 miles before I really know if it's a good fit. It always feels different at first, then I get used to it within an hour or so, but it takes a good 20 hours to know if it really relieves discomfort. Once I get just the right fit, I measure it and write it down, because it can be so hard to get back to the perfect fit if you lose it.

Bacciagalupe

Well, that settles that. Thanks for the detailed input.


Sure, there's room for individual variation. But ultimately, losing weight is a calorie game. If you control your diet, you'll lose weight, with or without exercise.

Fortunately, there are significant benefits to exercise, regardless of its relation to weight loss.


1) Ditch the scare quotes.
2) Reynolds is better at this than a lot of her fellow journalists.
3) There is also a long-standing tradition of people who dislike hearing counter-intuitive claims, and will refuse to accept the results.


The actual claim is much different.

The authors observed how intense exercise results in specific biomarkers, which indicate that these events might be causing some short-term harm. It resolves quickly, but repeated cardiac issues like this might cause long-term harm. The authors never say that "exercise is bad." They claim that "a safe upper-dose limit potentially exists, beyond which the adverse effects of exercise may outweigh its benefits." and thus recommend regular and moderate exercise.

(I'd also say that it's up to you if you want to engage in activities that may increase your risks of long-term cardiac harm, as long as you're making an informed choice. And obviously, many professional athletes knowingly and willingly accept substantially greater risks.)

Some news outlets that will not be named (like Newsmax) did a terrible job reporting on the study. Others, like Time, did a much better job.

Tell you what -- here's the study. Feel free to read it, and report on its errors.
https://download.journals.elsevierhea...9612004739.pdf


Yeah, you don't need to be a scientist to make that claim. There's obviously a reason why so many Americans are yo-yo dieters, and why obesity is a major and growing problem, while the US diet industry raked in $61 billion last year. We don't have the answers yet, but we're not going to figure it out by playing with our navels, or giving credit to anecdotal claims.


The fact that many journalists don't do a good job of reporting these studies does not mean that a) there are no journalists who do a good job at it, and b) that the science is actually wrong.

It takes more than one study, however good it is, to provide a definitive answer. But every investigation has to start somewhere, and it should not be surprising if the results frequently clash with unproven assertions we've assumed are correct with no real evidence.

Mycoalson

The approach you're advocating is very similar to how I'm approaching the challenge. I hadn't thought it all the way through as I'm not yet fit enough to really do it. Last week I hit 225 for the week but took two rest days. The week before it was 204 with two rest days. Ultimately, if I had to keep two rest days(6/2) and went 40 miles/day...I'd hit 960 at the end of the month. Your method (6/1) would put me at 1040 at the end of a month.

As I said, it is a challenge I'm hoping to meet, but don't want to try to soon as I'd rather succeed out the gate. I find it intriguing because it isn't just one long haul. Or even a long haul over a week, but rather takes discipline over the course of a fairly significant period of time.

It also appeals because I tend to believe that having a "base" level of fitness is the way to build a foundation for even greater fitness. Meaning simply that if I get used to doing 40/day for a month, the idea of doing a century every week, mixed with other rides becomes a more likely possibility.

Kind of an incremental discipline sort of thing.

As to the equipment response, that is appreciated as well. Personally, I have a tendency to want to tweak things to perfection, but in doing so, it can become possible to over think it and a passing physical issue can appear to be the result of equipment or technique when it is related to neither(that comes from other sports training...I'm new to biking.)

njkayaker

* Talking about obese people.
* No idea how much or what exercise they are doing.
* 7 pounds in 12 weeks is not "nothing".
* It provides detail about one study.
* It's a single article.

All sorts of problems yet you make this overly broad conclusion:

And it's not even a valid conclusion! And what does "much" mean?

There are significant benefits to exercise in relation to not being obese.

Exercise alone might not be enough for "large" weight losses but it still could be quite useful (including doing other things) to prevent and maintain weight loss.

So, to lose weight, you have to eat less than you burn (no one is arguing against that). It's kind of obvious.

How many obese marathon runners are there? How many obese LD riders are there (there are a few but the frequency is much, much less than the general population.

https://www.mayoclinic.com/health/exercise/SM00109