Long Steady Distance

[Karla]

Yebbut if we're talking about training for long distance cycling, losing weight is a side issue - the main issue is to train yourself to use fat as nutrition during your big event.   

[Chris S]

Anyone mentioned ketosis yet? 

My reference to Peter Attia's work, on this thread: https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=76353.msg1572410#msg1572410, is also apt here. His "aerobic base" (the point where CHO/Fat fuel is 50/50) increased dramatically after 12 weeks on a strict keto diet. This meant fat was a much bigger contributor to his fuelling, and at much higher heart rates.

My experiences are similar, but much more anecdotal (I haven't had access to VO2max tests, and RQ monitoring) - after following a keto diet for a few weeks, my ability to ride LSD without fuelling issues (bonk, hunger, intrusive thoughts of food) improved enormously.

[EGO-Maniac]

Anyone mentioned ketosis yet? 

Chris, you 'Paleo Guys' are real evangelists aren't you!!??

Interestingly, I get very similar reports from my friends who follow the 'ketogenic style' of eating - and I do believe there's merit to what you've mentioned. I've seen some guys make impressive performance improvements when on these diets. Of course, they are also making a number of other training and lifestyle changes as well - which slightly blurs the picture - but I am confident the diet approach is playing a big part.

I specifically used intermittent fasting (and fasted training) to prepare for LEL and had some really good results, setting PBs from 35 miles to 250-miles. I specifically noticed the need for food intake on long rides decreasing and my efficiency and stamina increasing when I did this...

[EGO-Maniac]

Yebbut if we're talking about training for log distance cycling, losing weight is a side issue - the main issue is to train yourself to use fat as nutrition during your big event.

  Are we? The initial query is not completely clear on this...

[mattc]

So long rides are not the best way to train if you want to burn fat, they are calorie neutral and you make up for the energy burned by eating more as you burn that energy. You do not need to eat as much to sustain a really intense session and most people wont eat at all during a very intense session, only before and after. Compare that to the amount of food eaten in a long slow ride.

[my bold]
The chief problem with that analysis is that most calories consumed ARE "before and after" ! Humans do not simply eat what they need - appetite (and psychological issues) are far more complex than that.

[I also thought that this thread was about fitness/speed, not weight-loss - but inevitably it has drifted that way... ]

EDIT: Forgot to say - I thought the rest of your post was excellent!

[EGO-Maniac]

[I thought this thread was about fitness/speed, not weight-loss - but inevitably it has drifted that way... ]

Matt, the two topics are invariably and inextricably linked - hence so many people chipping in about weight loss in this thread. Most people get into sports and physical training to control their weight and be healthier, so most people who do endurance sports will have an interest in weight loss and fat burning from that perspective already.

In relation to fitness and speed - controlling weight is again a crucial factor in that for most athletes. Excess fat slows athletes down.

In addition, regardless of your direct interest in fat burning (or lack of), conditioning the body's fat burning systems is a key biological part of developing fitness and speed in cycling. When we train there are some visible physical changes which take place, but most fitness-related changes are physiological (and our fitness actually relates to our body's cellular and hormonal adaptations to doing the activities we train for).

If you are talking about cycling fitness and speed, fat burning is hugely important in that fitness adaptation. And if you burn fat you lose weight and get thinner.

Whichever way you look at it - burning fat is crucial to this discussion.

[CrazyEnglishTriathlete]

Anecdotal evidence only - but I find that a 400km or 600km event relatively early in the season (May) seems to sharpen up my TT performance thereafter.  I'm not sure this is physiologcal - I suspect it is more psychological - that after a 30-hour event 4 hours-and-something on a 100TT doesn't seem so bad.

The problem I have with the argument  is the number of variables.  If a rider goes to the effort of adpating to a specific diet then they probably have a much greater focus than they would do otherwise - again part of a psychological toughening-up process.  So how much of the benefit of a specific diet or training regime or both is down to the regime and how much is down to the mental readiness (i went through all this to do well so...)

My best 25 mile TT result was the week after finishing the 1600km Mille Miglia Audax - so you could argue that this is weighty evidence behind the LSD argument.  In fact I was trained to my best because of the Mille Miglia and the 25 mile TT was just a spin off from that.

[Ningishzidda]

Train to improve your Volume Oxygen Uptake. Then you can't go wrong in any type of cycling.

But please note:-

"No-one ever got good by taking it easy." Tommy Godwin.

Now someone explain again about "The truth…." 

[andrew_s]

In a 5 hour ride you will need to eat regularly in order to keep going. That makes the ride somewhat CALORIE-NEUTRAL - because you put in as much energy as you are burning (or else you will 'bonk').

If you are trained up to LSD riding and riding at LSD pace, no, you don't need to eat regularly to keep going. It's perfectly possible to do a 100 mile ride on a bowl of muesli for breakfast, water, and a bacon butty and a pot of tea at elevensies (plus BEER at lunchtime). Then it's just a matter of resisting the munchies when you get home.

[Ningishzidda]

Lets say for example you have a poor VO2 uptake rate. You can only muster 180 Watts at Max HR. Every time you are required to give over 180 Watts, for example a hill that demands 220 Watts at a slow speed, you will be entering anaerobic activity, and when this stops, the muscles will take CHO from the blood on return to aerobic activity.

Lets say for example you are a TT whizz and have a VO2 uptake that can enable you to produce 280 Watts at Max HR. When you encounter the hill, slow down and climb it at 220 Watts, you are still within your aerobic region and don’t go anywhere near anaerobic. Much less CHO is taken from the blood.

Converting Fat to usable glycogen is not fast enough for the demands of a bicycle ride. CHO by way of simple carbs will need to be consumed to replenish the CHO used by the guy with poor VO2 uptake. Much less amounts of simple carbs will be required by the guy with high VO2 uptake.

The drawback here is you need to maintain a VO2 uptake which gives 280 Watts at MHR, or you will deteriorate to the level of everyone else. To do this, you will need to do lots of turbo work 'in secret' and 'on the quiet' and give others the impression you are a living god.

[uphillbothways]

The drawback here is you need to maintain a VO2 uptake which gives 280 Watts at MHR, or you will deteriorate to the level of everyone else. To do this, you will need to do lots of turbo work 'in secret' and 'on the quiet' and give others the impression you are a living god.

Or take the Obree way, where you write a book about all the turbo work you do .

[mattc]

Converting Fat to usable glycogen is not fast enough for the demands of a bicycle ride.

Far too vague; it clearly depends on how hard the ride is. The longer the ride, the lower the average power.

You can cover a lot of ground at 50% VO2max - a level you can ride at even when severely glycogen-depleted. (This isn't saying that a higher VO2max is a bad thing.)

[Pedal Castro]

Long, steady distance is good for training fat-burning, which is something high intensity riding will not do.

We used to think that. It turns out that high-intensity training substantially increases the basal metabolic rate for hours or days after the activity ends, because hypertrophy and repair are very calorically expensive. Strength athletes have similar calorie requirements to endurance athletes, even though they train far less - an olympic weightlifter might train for less than an hour a day, but still require in excess of 6,000 calories a day.

What I believe Helly was saying is that LSD trains the body to extract energy from fat stores rather than from glycogen during  exercise, which is something other than what you're talking about and is rather useful for endurance sport.

+1 The issue is that the body stores only enough glycogen for about 90' high intensity exercise, therefore for events longer than that you need to lessen the intensity which will utilise the fat burning mechanism.

[Ningishzidda]

Chatting about cycle training rules of engagement,

1/ Keep them guessing.
2/ Say things so they question their own strategy.

 

It doesn't happen on this site,,, 

[L CC]

Converting Fat to usable glycogen is not fast enough for the demands of a bicycle ride.

Fat doesn't need to be converted to glycogen, it can be broken down to ketones for fuel. If you train your body to use those ketones then you simply don't bonk, and keep riding off the energy from dietary and body fat.
Most regular long distance cyclists have already trained their bodies to favour fat burning on long rides. It's only when you're new to it you need to obsessively eat carbs every 30 minutes, or if you're pushing harder than the sustainable pace that the traditional LSD is all about.
The less carbohydrate you consume normally (ie not just what you eat when riding), the more your metabolism will favour fat burning.

[uphillbothways]

Converting Fat to usable glycogen is not fast enough for the demands of a bicycle ride.

Fat doesn't need to be converted to glycogen, it can be broken down to ketones for fuel. If you train your body to use those ketones then you simply don't bonk, and keep riding off the energy from dietary and body fat.
Most regular long distance cyclists have already trained their bodies to favour fat burning on long rides. It's only when you're new to it you need to obsessively eat carbs every 30 minutes, or if you're pushing harder than the sustainable pace that the traditional LSD is all about.
The less carbohydrate you consume normally (ie not just what you eat when riding), the more your metabolism will favour fat burning.

It's not a free lunch. Fat oxidation is about 10% less oxygen-efficient than metabolising carbohydrate, so fuelling with carbs significantly increases your power output for a given level of cardiovascular effort. If you're happy to just bimble along at any old pace then it's a non-issue, but if you care about performance in any way then using carbohydrate is a complete no-brainer. I don't see a lot of point in training an attribute that doesn't actually make me go faster or further - I'd rather use my training time to elevate my VO2Max or lower my CdA. I don't see anything particularly difficult about munching on a bag of jelly babies, nor do I have a great deal of body fat to spare.

[Ningishzidda]

Put it to the test.
Buy some bathroom scales, a pair of skinfold calipers and a riding/food diary.

See you next year.

[L CC]

Converting Fat to usable glycogen is not fast enough for the demands of a bicycle ride.

Fat doesn't need to be converted to glycogen, it can be broken down to ketones for fuel. If you train your body to use those ketones then you simply don't bonk, and keep riding off the energy from dietary and body fat.
Most regular long distance cyclists have already trained their bodies to favour fat burning on long rides. It's only when you're new to it you need to obsessively eat carbs every 30 minutes, or if you're pushing harder than the sustainable pace that the traditional LSD is all about.
The less carbohydrate you consume normally (ie not just what you eat when riding), the more your metabolism will favour fat burning.

It's not a free lunch. Fat oxidation is about 10% less oxygen-efficient than metabolising carbohydrate, so fuelling with carbs significantly increases your power output for a given level of cardiovascular effort. If you're happy to just bimble along at any old pace then it's a non-issue, but if you care about performance in any way then using carbohydrate is a complete no-brainer. I don't see a lot of point in training an attribute that doesn't actually make me go faster or further - I'd rather use my training time to elevate my VO2Max or lower my CdA. I don't see anything particularly difficult about munching on a bag of jelly babies, nor do I have a great deal of body fat to spare.

Even skinny people have thousands of calories sitting around in fat.

The OP was 'what's the point of L-S-D'.

And the answer is: to train your body to burn fat for fuel.

Munching on a bag of jelly babies might be easy, but riding for 4+ hours at 25kph without getting tired or hungry is a fine thing too.

[AAO]

[/quote]
 riding for 4+ hours at 25kph without getting tired or hungry is a fine thing too.
[/quote]

In my dreams............