Couple of problems while climbing out of the saddle...

redddraggon

Infamous wrote:

seated climbing is no different to seated flat riding.

"seated climbing is no different to seated flat riding.
"

It obviously is. Well for a start I know that I'm going all out on the flat I'll be on the nose of the saddle, but I definitely won't be on the nose when I climbing all out. I don't have a nearly flat back and I'm not in the drops with my forearms parallel to the ground.

If what you and Bhima are saying is correct, all hillclimb TTs should be done on Tri bars while seated.......

Infamous

I'm sure your technique is flawless oldwelshbloke. Although I did laugh at "pushing on pedals", don't you do this on the flat? maybe that's why you're slow on the flat.

Yes, the position is only about 95% the same as on the flat, fine, do your legs still make your pedals go round in the same way?

Infamous

redddraggon wrote:

Infamous wrote:

seated climbing is no different to seated flat riding.

"seated climbing is no different to seated flat riding.
"

It obviously is. Well for a start I know that I'm going all out on the flat I'll be on the nose of the saddle, but I definitely won't be on the nose when I climbing all out. I don't have a nearly flat back and I'm not in the drops with my forearms parallel to the ground.

If what you and Bhima are saying is correct, hillclimb TTs should be done on Tri bars while seated.......

People do climb some hillclimbs on TT bars. But most hill climbs are too steep. (and the tt position is normally low on power compared to normal position).

redddraggon

Infamous wrote:

(and the tt position is normally low on power compared to normal position).

If you except I don't know how you still think cycling on the flat is exactly the same as climbing.

Infamous

In terms of training and physical adaptions, it is the same.

Anonymous

I cant even be bothered reading half of this.

But if I was say in 53 gear and say 14 at the back and doing 27mph at 90RPM (dont know the exact speed and I'm not checking) on the flat, then if you where in the exact same gears and doing 90RPM UP hill, you'd be doing 27mph, but the fact is going up a hill takes ALOT more power, and you'd not have the power guaranteed, you would grind to a halt.

It's harder to climb hills end of, if it was not I'd be doign 20mph up a hill as I do on the flat.

Infamous

haha, I think he meant he'd be doing 90rpm uphill in a lower gear.

Anonymous

Well earlier on he said hills are the same as flats, they aint they are tons harder.

Infamous

I think you've missed the point will, maybe you should of read more than half the thread first?

Bhima

redddraggon wrote:

Bhima wrote:

I cycle the same up hills than on the flat.

BUT, of course I change my position.

That is what you would call a contradictory statement

I meant:

- My legs do exactly the same thing as on the flat. (I thought that's what you meant by "cycling")

- My gears are the same as they would be in a headwind of identical resistance on the flat.

- My body position may change - in the peak district, you sometimes get extreme downhill headwinds, so sticking to the drops is a good idea.

redddraggon

Infamous wrote:

In terms of training and physical adaptions, it is the same.

It's not, otherwise why do you think TTers and Triathletes train in the TT position, rather than just go out and climb every climb out there on a normal road bike?

Bhima wrote:

I meant:

- My legs do exactly the same thing as on the flat. (I thought that's what you meant by "cycling")

- My gears are the same as they would be in a headwind of identical resistance on the flat.

- My body position may change - in the peak district, you sometimes get extreme downhill headwinds, so sticking to the drops is a good idea.

Using a frame of reference as the air:

If there's a headwind you try and get as aerodynamic as possible because the air in relation to you will be moving faster, but you don't necessarily need to get aerodynamic on a windless climb as the air resistance is negligable compared to the gravity.

If you change position you use muscle groups in a different way.

Anonymous

Infamous wrote:

I think you've missed the point will, maybe you should of read more than half the thread first?

Well it's the correct point refering to something the OP said.

Besides, I think everyone climbs hills differently than cycling on the flats.

oldwelshman

Infamous wrote:

I'm sure your technique is flawless oldwelshbloke. Although I did laugh at "pushing on pedals", don't you do this on the flat? maybe that's why you're slow on the flat.

Yes, the position is only about 95% the same as on the flat, fine, do your legs still make your pedals go round in the same way?

Good response, not!!
In a nutshell, no they do not make them go round the same way, same direction yes, but not the same force through the entire pedal stroke.
As your one for percentages, how did you work out the position is 95% the same? How do you not know it is 90% or 93% !!
Laugh at pushing on pedals, hmm. Are you saying the pedalling action is same for uphill as flat? As much as I would like to think I am a good climber, I am not a natural climber and I would love to be able to pedal for the full pedal rotation when climbing but for most people (probably not you though) climbing tends to be less smooth through the full roatation than on the flat. On the track I am pretty sure I pedal much smoother and "round" than when climbing a steep gradient.
By the way who said I was slow on the flat? I am much stronger on the flat than climbs thats for sure but I guess as your pedal action is the same irrespective of whether its flat or 35% gradient I look forward to seeing you in the polka dot shirt in this years TDF whilst climbing the Alps sat down doing 100rpm on tt bars passing Armstrong and the others.

oldwelshman

Infamous wrote:

ShockedSoShocked wrote:

Honestly, I'm not lying you to, hills kill speed on the flats. When I first joined my cycling team, I'd spent two years leathering up hills every ride. Sure, I was fit, and was no slouch on the flats, but going out on a proper chain gang killed me. I couldn't ride in the wind and was constantly being half wheeled. Sure I could storm off up a hill but what use was it if you get turned over on the flats. Do enough riding and the climbing will come naturally. Look at the amount of brilliant climbers from the low countries. Hardly any huge mountains, but years of riding hard on the flat being battered by headwinds makes them exceptionally strong.

What a load of nonsense.

So riding hills a lot slows you on the flat, but riding on the flat speeds you up on the hills?

To an extent bhima is right when he said "hills are like flats", it doesn't matter where the resistance comes from, wind, gravity or turbo trainer, you still have to turn the pedals over. Obviously, the things that are different are position and pacing. If you climb out of the saddle a lot, it will make you better out of the saddle, but that is often useful on the flat too, no?

If you ride up a hill for 5 mins @ x power, or ride on the flat for 5 mins @ x power (in the same position, with the same cadence), there is no difference.

.

Except for the distance covered in those 5 minutes as you would be in a much bigger gear on the flat doing same cadence as you would compared to climbing with same power.
250w on the flat will generally give you a decent speed (ok generalising a bit due to fatness of rider and wind) but 250w on a climb? hmm about 6 mph
If you really want to work it out try this site:
http://www.machinehead-software.co.uk/bike/power/bicycle_power_calculator.html

Infamous

oldwelshman wrote:

Infamous wrote:

If you ride up a hill for 5 mins @ x power, or ride on the flat for 5 mins @ x power (in the same position, with the same cadence), there is no difference.
.

Except for the distance covered in those 5 minutes as you would be in a much bigger gear on the flat doing same cadence as you would compared to climbing with same power.
250w on the flat will generally give you a decent speed (ok generalising a bit due to fatness of rider and wind) but 250w on a climb? hmm about 6 mph
If you really want to work it out try this site:
http://www.machinehead-software.co.uk/bike/power/bicycle_power_calculator.html

You go faster on the flat than on a hill? really? i'm learning all the time. :roll:

quite clearly I meant you are getting the same training effect from both 5 min rides. How old are you?

oldwelshman wrote:

By the way who said I was slow on the flat? I am much stronger on the flat than climbs thats for sure but I guess as your pedal action is the same irrespective of whether its flat or 35% gradient I look forward to seeing you in the polka dot shirt in this years TDF whilst climbing the Alps sat down doing 100rpm on tt bars passing Armstrong and the others.

Oh, so you agree that that's the best way to do it then? thanks. arguement over, I'm glad you could admit you were so very wrong. No apology needed. cheers.

shockedsoshocked

As redddragon said in a previous thread:

fnegroni

oldwelshman wrote:

Laugh at pushing on pedals, hmm. Are you saying the pedalling action is same for uphill as flat? As much as I would like to think I am a good climber, I am not a natural climber and I would love to be able to pedal for the full pedal rotation when climbing but for most people (probably not you though) climbing tends to be less smooth through the full roatation than on the flat. On the track I am pretty sure I pedal much smoother and "round" than when climbing a steep gradient.

Strange, complete opposite for me.

I find I pedal slightly etter uphill then on the flats... but that could just be a sensation.

teagar

That legendary coach from FDJ (I know...), can't remember his name. He said that he wants his pros to be able to do 4 minutes hard out of the saddle. Said it somewhere in Procycling a while back.

He's worth listening to.

Training on flats can hardly hurt your speed uphill. But training uphill is likely to improve it even more.

oldwelshman

Infamous wrote:

oldwelshman wrote:

Infamous wrote:

If you ride up a hill for 5 mins @ x power, or ride on the flat for 5 mins @ x power (in the same position, with the same cadence), there is no difference.
.

Except for the distance covered in those 5 minutes as you would be in a much bigger gear on the flat doing same cadence as you would compared to climbing with same power.
250w on the flat will generally give you a decent speed (ok generalising a bit due to fatness of rider and wind) but 250w on a climb? hmm about 6 mph
If you really want to work it out try this site:
http://www.machinehead-software.co.uk/bike/power/bicycle_power_calculator.html

You go faster on the flat than on a hill? really? i'm learning all the time. :roll:

quite clearly I meant you are getting the same training effect from both 5 min rides. How old are you?

oldwelshman wrote:

By the way who said I was slow on the flat? I am much stronger on the flat than climbs thats for sure but I guess as your pedal action is the same irrespective of whether its flat or 35% gradient I look forward to seeing you in the polka dot shirt in this years TDF whilst climbing the Alps sat down doing 100rpm on tt bars passing Armstrong and the others.

Oh, so you agree that that's the best way to do it then? thanks. arguement over, I'm glad you could admit you were so very wrong. No apology needed. cheers.

How old am I ? 47, maybe thats why I find it difficult to understand the crap you write.
Maybe we will meet in a race on road or track one day and you can teach me your wonderful technique for cycling uphill same as on flat.

liversedge

Do you really use the same muscles on the flat and the hills?

I tend to "sit up" when spinning (85-90 rpm) up a climb in the saddle and "get low" when turning (80-85 rpm) a big gear on the flat. This is a significant change in trunk angle for me. As a result, I recruite different muscles and apply different forces. I cannot believe I am alone in this?

http://www.humankinetics.com/jab/viewar ... m?aid=2587

shockedsoshocked

liversedge wrote:

Do you really use the same muscles on the flat and the hills?

I tend to "sit up" when spinning (85-90 rpm) up a climb in the saddle and "get low" when turning (80-85 rpm) a big gear on the flat. This is a significant change in trunk angle for me. As a result, I recruite different muscles and apply different forces. I cannot believe I am alone in this?

http://www.humankinetics.com/jab/viewar ... m?aid=2587

Woah there liversedge. We're dealing with people here who can seemingly defy the laws of nature and physics, don't bring science in to it!

oldwelshman

liversedge wrote:

Do you really use the same muscles on the flat and the hills?

I tend to "sit up" when spinning (85-90 rpm) up a climb in the saddle and "get low" when turning (80-85 rpm) a big gear on the flat. This is a significant change in trunk angle for me. As a result, I recruite different muscles and apply different forces. I cannot believe I am alone in this?

http://www.humankinetics.com/jab/viewar ... m?aid=2587

Probably the same as the majority just the ODD one or two may differ.
I cramped badly in one race last year and could only finish by riding out of saddle to prevent muscles cramping, soon as I sat I got cramp in quads, no cramp out of saddle as quads not used as much.

nasahapley

ShockedSoShocked wrote:

liversedge wrote:

Do you really use the same muscles on the flat and the hills?

I tend to "sit up" when spinning (85-90 rpm) up a climb in the saddle and "get low" when turning (80-85 rpm) a big gear on the flat. This is a significant change in trunk angle for me. As a result, I recruite different muscles and apply different forces. I cannot believe I am alone in this?

http://www.humankinetics.com/jab/viewar ... m?aid=2587

Woah there liversedge. We're dealing with people here who can seemingly defy the laws of nature and physics, don't bring science in to it!

Well lets see what the abstract of the scientific paper says before we get too condescending shall we? (And btw thanks for the link Liversedge, brings some much needed light in a debate that's generated pretty much nothing but heat 'til now!). Unless I've misunderstood, it says that altering trunk angle will not lead to you using 'different muscles', but rather the same muscles but with slightly different levels of recruitment (I accept that this is probably what everyone means when they say 'uses different muscles' in this context, but it's an important distinction). So while this does indeed disprove the notion that hills are exactly the same as the flat if you use a different position, what it definitely doesn't say is that training on hills is so different from training on the flat that it will actually make you slower on the latter. Even though it seems a bit counter-intuitive and contrary to my own experience, I'm still very willing to believe that conjecture if there's scientific evidence to support it, but this ain't it.

Pokerface

Without getting involved in this most excellent debate on position, climbing vs flats, etc - I will point out my personal experience - and that is climbing in no way is helping me get faster on the flats.

Climbing training is getting me better at going uphill very slowly, using low RPMs. But it doesn't help me when I'm trying to maintain a high RPM for an extended period of time on the flat.

Perhaps I'm not working hard enough going up those hills.

eh

Surely no one isolates their training to such an extent that they never ride hills hard or vice versa never ride flats hard?

Here's an idea tuesdays hill reps, thursdays flat intervals, ta dah bit of balance in your training.

he wants his pros to be able to do 4 minutes hard out of the saddle.

Seems sensible to me.

liversedge

nasahapley wrote:

Unless I've misunderstood, it says that altering trunk angle will not lead to you using 'different muscles', but rather the same muscles but with slightly different levels of recruitment

That's my interpretation. It would be very starange if a muscle didn't get used at all, after all the motion is largely similar i.e. pedalling!

The key point here is the contribution from specific muscles is higher/lower durng the pedalling stroke for trunk angle (flat or hill riding) - so an advantage on the flat might not translate to the hills, or vice-versa.

We could be talking marginal differences tho. who knows?