Alpine like Hills in England?

knedlicky

jhop wrote:

Before my first etape in 2003 Ron Cutler of Etape.org fame told me that if I could do a hilly UK 200 K Audax comfortably then it would be likely that I would survive the etape. Armed with his advice I went to Pau and had a great day which inspired me to return again and again.
What you wont get so easily here is the extreme range of temperatures and weather conditions that high mountain riding can throw at you.

I can agree with the advice about a hilly 200 K Audax, because the main requirement is endurance. In this respect, the relatively short climbs to 450-600m in Wales, Scotland, Exmoor and elsewhere are irrelevant on their own.

The point about the range of temperatures very valid. By midday, you can sometimes find you’re riding in 35 degrees C (measured in the shade) up to altitudes of 1500 m, so even hotter if you’re on an exposed climb, the mountain-side facing south. Alternatively, especially in late June or early September, you can find it’s 0 deg C at the top of a pass.

Blonde wrote:

Feeling short of breath or getting strong headaches at altitude is common. You will probably need to pee constantly at altitude too. This is NOT because you are over hydrated though, it's just an effect of altitude, so do keep drinking a LOT as you'll need to replenish any fluid lost.

Blonde wrote:

I distinctly remeber feelling light headed, full of headaches and really rather terrible as well as kind of breathless the first time I was cycling in the Alps - the first time in my life that I had ever been above about 1000 metres.
I still pissed contantly though, especially on the nights where we slept at altitude in the mountain refuges. Last year we went out there again and I still find I pee constantly at altitude of around 2000 metres

As far as I know, altitude problems don’t affect most people until about 3000 m above sea level. Perhaps not for all, but for many who have problems earlier, these stem from misinformation affecting the mind and then the body. Or a mixture of fatigue caused by a change of temperature and humidity compared to home, combined with an unrelentness ascent.

Despite what she’s said, I’d venture to say Blonde’s pissing problems on rides through the mountains have to do with drinking too much, a common fault nowadays. With the emphasis on avoiding dehydration, some go to the opposite extreme.
Those problems she had at night at the mountain huts perhaps had to do with drinking too much beer in the enjoyable evening company, combined with the fact that the mountain hut dormitories aren’t normally that warm, often even quite cold – this could also be the cause of a headache.

gbs

[quote="Greenbank"]

For me this would be 80rpm and about 150bpm (65% MHR for me) and sit on it for 2 hours. If you've got an easily variable resistance I'd do occasional 5 minute blocks at 60% MHR or 70% MHR.


I hope this doesn't sound facetious but that suggests a MHR of 230ish and using the often quoted rule of 220 - age = MHR an age of -10!

Taking yr 65% MHR rule and my age, 67, I would be restricted to 100 bpm; assuming 75% rule (which I think is justified by some writers) 115bpm would seem to be limit for me. My guess is that would be agonisingly slow. From what I remember from glances at the (new) monitor last time up Box Hill I was at 130bpm (time 8:48 ave speed 16.6kph).

Does any experienced older rider have a comment please.

bahzob

gbs wrote:

[quote="Greenbank"]

For me this would be 80rpm and about 150bpm (65% MHR for me) and sit on it for 2 hours. If you've got an easily variable resistance I'd do occasional 5 minute blocks at 60% MHR or 70% MHR.


I hope this doesn't sound facetious but that suggests a MHR of 230ish and using the often quoted rule of 220 - age = MHR an age of -10!

Taking yr 65% MHR rule and my age, 67, I would be restricted to 100 bpm; assuming 75% rule (which I think is justified by some writers) 115bpm would seem to be limit for me. My guess is that would be agonisingly slow. From what I remember from glances at the (new) monitor last time up Box Hill I was at 130bpm (time 8:48 ave speed 16.6kph).

Does any experienced older rider have a comment please.

[/quote]

How old do you have to rate as an "experienced older rider"? If 50 counts then best advice I can give is:
- do a 25 mile time trial on the bike you will use for climbing
- during it monitor whatever you are most comfortable with. IMO power is best if you can afford/trust power meters but if not use HR, RPE or speed
- Training zone for long climbs is 10% or so below this measure. (if you use speed obviously need to do any training on same course as you did the TT..)

FransJacques

RICHYBOYcp wrote:

Agree with mention of Great Dunfell...thats one killer effort....7 kms longs at near 9% average...I think this was tougher than Alpe De Huez!...it has such steep sections

tougher than the Ad'H? keep smoking what you're smoking... Over the last 10 years that thing has been one of the toughest I've climbed, ever. Mostly due to the heat and the fact it starts off and finishes very steep indeed.

Just Les Trois Ballons last weekend in the Vosges region - details are 205kms/4300 vert meters. This sportive was tougher than 50% of the etapes I've done and the climbs were quite steep as well in parts, others not. But the training effect is superbe. Point being while you don't always need Ventoux-like climbs to train for the Ventoux, nothing, and I mean nothing trains you for climbing like 45-90 mins of non-stop climbing - preferably in direct sun-light > 30C. You can't do that here dependably.

Depends on experience as well - if you're a strong UK rider but want more mountain experience then best to book a cheap hol to Tenerife or Mallorca and ride the Colobra 3x back to back. You have to become accustomed to the pain of climbing. I now love it but didn't always. If you've been doing alpine/pyreneean rides for yonks, I think that a 50 mile TT is a good proxy for climbing power, because afterall power to weight and comfort at holding yourself near your redline but not blowing it are the key elements.

alanmcn1

Greenbank wrote:

And to answer the original question, without access to a suitable hill I'd simulate a long boring steep climb with an HRM and a turbo.

Warm up and then set the turbo to a high enough resistance (or go into a high enough gear) than you're grinding away at comfortable climbing cadence at the appropriate HR.

For me this would be 80rpm and about 150bpm (65% MHR for me) and sit on it for 2 hours. If you've got an easily variable resistance I'd do occasional 5 minute blocks at 60% MHR or 70% MHR.

Adjust for your favoured cadence and sustainable HR for climbing.

Your speed is unimportant, you want to be simulating long periods of time at a steady (high-ish) heart rate.

Frighteningly dull though. Sit the turbo in front of a TV or a laptop and watch a film or two.

Having just returned from cycling alpe d'huez, croix de fer, deux alpes, and d'ornon over the weekend, all I can say is that I would kill to find out how the hell to keep your HR at 65% while climbing these buggers. My own experiences, as a club rider in my early 30's, of french mountains is that it hurts like hell and you pretty much red-line and push yourself to the limits for the entire climb! maybe that's just me though.

PS. I have done Ventoux and I found that there is no training I could do for it, that's the fun of the challenge.

IanTrcp

bahzob wrote:

gbs wrote:

[quote="Greenbank"]

For me this would be 80rpm and about 150bpm (65% MHR for me) and sit on it for 2 hours. If you've got an easily variable resistance I'd do occasional 5 minute blocks at 60% MHR or 70% MHR.


I hope this doesn't sound facetious but that suggests a MHR of 230ish and using the often quoted rule of 220 - age = MHR an age of -10!

Taking yr 65% MHR rule and my age, 67, I would be restricted to 100 bpm; assuming 75% rule (which I think is justified by some writers) 115bpm would seem to be limit for me. My guess is that would be agonisingly slow. From what I remember from glances at the (new) monitor last time up Box Hill I was at 130bpm (time 8:48 ave speed 16.6kph).

Does any experienced older rider have a comment please.

How old do you have to rate as an "experienced older rider"? If 50 counts then best advice I can give is:
- do a 25 mile time trial on the bike you will use for climbing
- during it monitor whatever you are most comfortable with. IMO power is best if you can afford/trust power meters but if not use HR, RPE or speed
- Training zone for long climbs is 10% or so below this measure. (if you use speed obviously need to do any training on same course as you did the TT..)

[/quote][/quote]


Interesting! Reality can intrude here as well. On last years Etape I found the final climb up to Hautacam a real struggle. I was simply not able to either 'spin' comfortably (even with 34/27...) or to climb with my HR in the low 70%'s. So it all became a rather grim struggle.

My own 'threshold' HR (determined through blood lactate testing) is 164bpm, I'm confident that I'd confirm this if I did the 25mile TT test outlined above. So my personal long climb strategy is simply to keep my HR in the 150's. If this means going deliberately slowly at times, or letting cadence drop, then I've learnt to get comfortable with doing this. In fact, I train deliberately with this in mind. It always amuses me when someone passes me on a UK climb puffing and panting away and - seeing my slow rate of progress - gasps at me to "stick with it mate". "I'm training for the alps so keeping my HR down" doesn't sound like a credible excuse does it!

The two Etape08 climbs both featured steeper pitches where staying in the 150's simply wasn't possible. I think you just have to accept the pain that these cause and discipline yourself to recover by soft-pedalling for a while thereafter. My sense is that accumulated time over threshold is what really kills you off, so pacing is everything.

Regarding cadence, toward the end of the Hautacam climb last year I discovered it was easier to climb on a higher gear (I think I used the 24 sprocket) at the expense of cadence. Not sure why this would be, possibly just a case of using slightly different muscles?

volvine

What about the Bealach na Ba from Tornapress to Applecross. 10km to clime from virtualy sea level to 600m. It's one hell of a climb. Its got steady bits, steep bits and hairpins. A fantastic view from the top as a reward, provided you head is not in hte clouds.

agree this is a awsome climb you could ride over towards Applecross then go back over from the other side which looked harder but just going up one side would be a tough climb (i drove over in the car was hard enough lol).
also stunning views.

gbs

I am pleased to see that my question is eliciting response and thanks to all. My road cycling experience began in November so that explains the following queries that are probably somewhat elementary to other posters.

to bahzob: RPE?

to Ian: your refer to threshold - does this mean aerobic max at say 80% of MHR?

to Alan and FransJaques: redline? same concept?

bahzob

IanTrcp wrote:

Interesting! Reality can intrude here as well. On last years Etape I found the final climb up to Hautacam a real struggle. I was simply not able to either 'spin' comfortably (even with 34/27...) or to climb with my HR in the low 70%'s. So it all became a rather grim struggle.

...The two Etape08 climbs both featured steeper pitches where staying in the 150's simply wasn't possible. I think you just have to accept the pain that these cause and discipline yourself to recover by soft-pedalling for a while thereafter. My sense is that accumulated time over threshold is what really kills you off, so pacing is everything.

Regarding cadence, toward the end of the Hautacam climb last year I discovered it was easier to climb on a higher gear (I think I used the 24 sprocket) at the expense of cadence. Not sure why this would be, possibly just a case of using slightly different muscles?

Just to clarify Question was about how to train for alpine climbs and thats what I was referring to.

For the event itself pacing will be different, though will to a large extent depend on how good you are and how well you have trained. In a nutshell the better you are then the closer to threshold you will be able to do the climbs.

You are right to say that at all costs you want to avoid going over threshold as much as possible.

I described real examples of pacing for the Marmotte below:

I'm pretty fit and managed to do the 4 climbs in the event at around 87% to 75% of my threshold power. Still I cant compare with an elite road racer who managed to climb in the 90%s.

Examples of Marmotte pacing
http://mr-miff-on-tour.blogspot.com/2008/07/marmotte-compared-to-best_17.html

Rough and ready pacing guide is here.
http://mr-miff-on-tour.blogspot.com/2009/04/marmotte-power-pacing-guide.html

bahzob

gbs wrote:

I am pleased to see that my question is eliciting response and thanks to all. My road cycling experience began in November so that explains the following queries that are probably somewhat elementary to other posters.

to bahzob: RPE?

to Ian: your refer to threshold - does this mean aerobic max at say 80% of MHR?

to Alan and FransJaques: redline? same concept?

RPE stands for "Rating of Perceived Exertion" though its often also called "Relative Perceived Effort". Some more stuff about it is here:
http://www.topendsports.com/testing/rpe.htm

In a nutshell its a score, (out of 10 or 20) of how hard you find a given effort. 0 = nothing 10 = you can do for 1-2secs and then you have to stop (if you dont death will do it for you).

As such its quite subjective + rough and ready but still useful. If I use it I tend to supplement with something a bit more concrete. One thing I find useful is how I am breathing. Something like
0-3 dont notice breathing at all
4-6 notice breathing but mainly through nose
7-8 breathing has to be through mouth harder and harder
9 - every breath is an effort
10 - breathing impossible.

Training for alpine climbs will be between 6-7 on this scale.

IanTrcp

bahzob wrote:

In a nutshell the better you are then the closer to threshold you will be able to do the climbs.

That's also interesting!

I had understood that the better you are, the higher your power output is at threshold so the faster you'll able to do the climbs.

That is slightly different to the better you are then the closer to threshold you will be able to do the climbs.

I don't think that these two statements are contradictory, but ???

Either way, my conclusion has been that training to increase power at or just below threshold is the key to making events like the Etape enjoyable. I'll be collecting important data on this on July 20th ;>

IanTrcp

gbs wrote:

to Ian: your refer to threshold - does this mean aerobic max at say 80% of MHR?

In my case/parlance I am referring to what the nice testing lady defined as my lactate threshold. This she determined by taking and analysing periodic blood samples whilst I cycled at steadily increasing power outputs. I did the test before starting training in earnest - and my "threshold" was at a rather puny 246w and 164bpm (83% of my tested HRmax).

My understanding is that this "threshold" is the point (in terms of HR and power output) at which my body's production of lactic acid exceeds my ability to stop it accumulating. The accumulation being what eventually makes you want to stop and cry for your mummy.

I think that the 83% must be about right as I've never managed to average more than that on a ride of over an hour, but quite often can sustain 81% or so when really trying hard. I understand that the 246w is eminently improvable through training (and I think/hope that I have achieved this) but am less sure as to whether or not the 164bpm/83% itself is improvable as such???

Entering this data into http://bikecalculator.com/veloUS.html, using 14.2miles and 7.1% suggests a time to climb Ventoux of 120.36 minutes. I doubt it after 150k in 30deg+!!! Personally I will be thrilled to break 150mins. Here's hoping!

Anonymous

Bike calculator is rather generous...

doyler78

IanTrcp wrote:

gbs wrote:

to Ian: your refer to threshold - does this mean aerobic max at say 80% of MHR?

In my case/parlance I am referring to what the nice testing lady defined as my lactate threshold. This she determined by taking and analysing periodic blood samples whilst I cycled at steadily increasing power outputs. I did the test before starting training in earnest - and my "threshold" was at a rather puny 246w and 164bpm (83% of my tested HRmax).

My understanding is that this "threshold" is the point (in terms of HR and power output) at which my body's production of lactic acid exceeds my ability to stop it accumulating. The accumulation being what eventually makes you want to stop and cry for your mummy.

I think that the 83% must be about right as I've never managed to average more than that on a ride of over an hour, but quite often can sustain 81% or so when really trying hard. I understand that the 246w is eminently improvable through training (and I think/hope that I have achieved this) but am less sure as to whether or not the 164bpm/83% itself is improvable as such???

Entering this data into http://bikecalculator.com/veloUS.html, using 14.2miles and 7.1% suggests a time to climb Ventoux of 120.36 minutes. I doubt it after 150k in 30deg+!!! Personally I will be thrilled to break 150mins. Here's hoping!

It is only really trainable by those that are very new to endurance sport or haven't got a proper endurance base for whatever reason and that's the reason why incremental increases in threshold power (and weight reduction as it is really power to weight ratio in a climb that is fundamentally important) are the mainstay of many a cycling programme.

My LTHR @ FTP is about 85% at min and I think I should be able to raise that a little further (has risen 4% over the last 4 months coming off inconsistent training over the past 2 years with little endurance base due to persistently recurring injury - now sorted I think - now I've fell on my hand and can't ride but can do the odd turbo session so getting some work done).

IanTrcp

doyler78 wrote:

My LTHR @ FTP is about 85% at min

Forgive me but I'm having trouble with abbreviations. I read your sentence above as:

My lactate threshold heart rate @ functional threshold power is about 85% (of my max heart rate) at the moment

So your heart rate at the power output that you can sustain for an hour is 85% of your max heart rate?

doyler78

IanTrcp wrote:

doyler78 wrote:

My LTHR @ FTP is about 85% at min

Forgive me but I'm having trouble with abbreviations. I read your sentence above as:

My lactate threshold heart rate @ functional threshold power is about 85% (of my max heart rate) at the moment

So your heart rate at the power output that you can sustain for an hour is 85% of your max heart rate?

Yup your right

volvine

bloody el you guys must struggle to actually ride your bikes concentrating on all those figs and stats

gbs

to volvine; as the originator of this debate I am sorry that you have been so distracted that someone has been able to sneak in and pinch most of the spokes from your unattended Trek bike. If it is no longer fit for yr purpose I will take it off yr hands.javascript:emoticon(':wink:')

volvine

make me a decent offer although not sure if it will get you up the Alpine passes any quicker.

sudholz

Going back to page 1, the short answer to the original question is no.

Image shows my hard training run from North London to Surrey Hills (Leith, Whitedown, Headley etc) compared to an alpine Marmotte reccy (Bourg d'Oisan/Glandon/Croix de Fer/Bourg d'Oisan) last year....says it all really.



S

sportbilly1976

Bahzob,

Interesting comparison table you had there...

to be honest there is not much difference on the various sections - 5-20 mins at most...apart from the descent down the Glandon - 1:09 for your self and just 24 minutes for Andrew...for 42 kms..... :shock:

did he jump & parachute down by any chance??

bahzob

sportbilly1976 wrote:

Bahzob,

Interesting comparison table you had there...

to be honest there is not much difference on the various sections - 5-20 mins at most...apart from the descent down the Glandon - 1:09 for your self and just 24 minutes for Andrew...for 42 kms..... :shock:

did he jump & parachute down by any chance??

Those minutes add up, I ended up an hour and a quarter slower.

Re the Glandon descent, my time includes descent plus the drag up to the base of the Telegraph. Andrew split these in two so like for like he took 1:00 to my 1:09.

JamesB

Back on the altitude issue---not only can different people react differently but same person in different years can also react differently; I`ve been up on a 4000m peak in The Rockies with no issues re altitude that caused problems, but a few years later was in big trouble at 3000m in the Alps and was utterly done in, pulse wouldn`t go below 100 for 24 hr, and was thoroughly drained, and had to abandon summit attempt.
On tourmalet at 1900-2000m mark I noticed a distinct change in my breathing pattern due to I believe altitude, I don`t put in down to fatigue as I had carefully paced myself with an HRM, and had no problems on the first 45 min of the climb (apart from having to ride uphill1)