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.

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.

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.

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

ZeCanon, Boom! +1

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Look where that's got ya. :lol:

worked for dock ellis.

touchdown!!!!