Getting up hills

Paul E

TGOTB wrote:

Bustacapp wrote:

By 'hills' does that include 20 - 30% gradients? Because if so then I've seen plenty of poor souls pushing their bikes so they must live in bungalows according to your logic!!

Not at all. The reason they can't get up the hills has nothing to do with their leg strength, which is what everyone on this thread is trying to tell you.

Simple thought experiment:
Part 1: Put bike on steep hill (let's say 30%). Stand astride bike. Put foot on pedal and stand on pedal. For the sake of simplicity, assume someone is holding the bike for you, stopping it falling over or rolling backward. One of three things will happen:
1. You're unable to stand on the pedal, you just can't straighten your leg => you have insufficient leg strength.
2. You stand on pedal, but bike doesn't move forward => you have sufficient leg strength, but are geared too highly.
3. You stand on pedal, bike moves forward => Well done, you have sufficient leg strength and potentially have appropriate gearing too, now go on to part 2.

Part 2: Start pedalling. Now one of three things will happen.
1. You reach the top of the hill => Well done! Now go and have a cup of coffee and a piece of cake.
2. You grind to a halt; your heart feels like it's trying to escape from your chest and your lungs are burning => You need more cardiovascular fitness. Do more riding (any riding), just make sure you push yourself. When you've done this a few times, come back and try again.
3. You grind to a halt; your heart and lungs feel ok but your legs are burning => your leg muscles lack endurance. Try short hill reps, and consider using a lower gear/higher cadence.

Assuming you got to part 2, note that, until you ground to a halt, you were actually going faster than all the people who got off and walked. The real problem is that you couldn't sustain the power output required to continue riding; by getting off and walking, those people are using the same amount of leg strength as before, but by slowing down they have reduced their power output to a level that their cardiovascular system can handle.

BOOM !

Kieran_Burns

cyclingprop wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

and yet you all have a go at me about my Triple chainsets... :P

You have more than one? :roll:

See! See!! That's bullying that is.

Paul E

Kieran_Burns wrote:

cyclingprop wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

and yet you all have a go at me about my Triple chainsets... :P

You have more than one? :roll:

See! See!! That's bullying that is.

I had a triple once, never used the granny ring tho so ditched it, I feel 27% more manly now

Kieran_Burns

Paul E wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

cyclingprop wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

and yet you all have a go at me about my Triple chainsets... :P

You have more than one? :roll:

See! See!! That's bullying that is.

I had a triple once, never used the granny ring tho so ditched it, I feel 27% more manly now

'cept the middle ring is a 39, so I'm actually running a higher gear. So, nuh.

(hope no one asks about the 32 on the cassette....)

stu-bim

Rolf F wrote:

But it's only after lots of repeats that sheer physical strength (IMO) starts to get the upper hand over the light weight, low power method of climbing (as used by me!).

I find this very interesting. I am new to cycling and coming from a gym background I would have gone for the squats, leg strength thing until recently. I naturally agree with getting stronger legs but my recent experience is the opposite. I have been practising uping my cadence for the past month or so and I have been getting faster on most rides and finding it a hell of a lot easier for long rides (long for me is between 20-30 miles). I also get off the bike without legs burning and wanting to explode through the skin.

Paul E

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Paul E wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

cyclingprop wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

and yet you all have a go at me about my Triple chainsets... :P

You have more than one? :roll:

See! See!! That's bullying that is.

I had a triple once, never used the granny ring tho so ditched it, I feel 27% more manly now

'cept the middle ring is a 39, so I'm actually running a higher gear. So, nuh.

(hope no one asks about the 32 on the cassette....)

Mine was too, and still is on my current setup, 34 is too puny

rick_chasey

If you want to cycle up hills quicker, cycle up lots of hills. You'll get better.

And as ever, if you can't increase the power, lose the weight.

Job done.

You'd have to be at a pretty high level of fitness to not see any good improvement from riding more.

lostboysaint

Daddy0 wrote:

I made it up a long hill that is 28% incline at its steepest t'other day with my 34-25 lowest gear. I was out of the saddle, lungs were exploding. Remembering this phrase helped:

"Your mind will give up 10 times before your body does"

I never would've been able to do that a year ago, but I am fitter and (a bit) leaner nowadays. The two things go hand in hand. Just get fitter, ride up more hills, do longer distances - the weight will come off naturally (unless you're already a stick insect).

Remember to hydrate and eat enough bananas. Don't wear too many layers, i.e. don't overheat.


Breathing is important. If you find you're breathing fast and heavy then concentrate on your breathing and take longer deeper breaths. This will calm your heart rate down, oxygenate your blood better and help you shed more body heat. Well, it does me anyway.

Had a major problem yesterday on what should have been the most simple of rides. Knew after the first climb that I was in for a difficult morning and everything you've written there was a contributing factor:

1. Crap in - crap out: hadn't had a decent evening meal on Sat, and just a single porridge sachet on Sunday morning.
2. Too many layers: baselayer, jersey and windstopper as it was 2.5 degC when I started. Problem was that it became 10 deg C very quickly. I became paranoid about taking the windstopper off and freezing in my own sweat (although it's all perfectly breathable!) so didn't, and boiled even more.
3. Hydration - didn't take enough pre-ride, didn't take enough during the ride (something of which I am particularly guilty generally).

Fortunately I was with a few guys that I could blag it with. I rode well within my much reduced limits, span up the hills with my head down and focussing on keeping my breathing under control and did both the miles and the hills. But it was a salutary reminder of getting things right before you set off and managing them when you're out!

Bustacapp

TGOTB wrote:

Bustacapp wrote:

By 'hills' does that include 20 - 30% gradients? Because if so then I've seen plenty of poor souls pushing their bikes so they must live in bungalows according to your logic!!

Not at all. The reason they can't get up the hills has nothing to do with their leg strength, which is what everyone on this thread is trying to tell you.

Simple thought experiment:
Part 1: Put bike on steep hill (let's say 30%). Stand astride bike. Put foot on pedal and stand on pedal. For the sake of simplicity, assume someone is holding the bike for you, stopping it falling over or rolling backward. One of three things will happen:
1. You're unable to stand on the pedal, you just can't straighten your leg => you have insufficient leg strength.
2. You stand on pedal, but bike doesn't move forward => you have sufficient leg strength, but are geared too highly.
3. You stand on pedal, bike moves forward => Well done, you have sufficient leg strength and potentially have appropriate gearing too, now go on to part 2.

Part 2: Start pedalling. Now one of three things will happen.
1. You reach the top of the hill => Well done! Now go and have a cup of coffee and a piece of cake.
2. You grind to a halt; your heart feels like it's trying to escape from your chest and your lungs are burning => You need more cardiovascular fitness. Do more riding (any riding), just make sure you push yourself. When you've done this a few times, come back and try again.
3. You grind to a halt; your heart and lungs feel ok but your legs are burning => your leg muscles lack endurance. Try short hill reps, and consider using a lower gear/higher cadence.

Assuming you got to part 2, note that, until you ground to a halt, you were actually going faster than all the people who got off and walked. The real problem is that you couldn't sustain the power output required to continue riding; by getting off and walking, those people are using the same amount of leg strength as before, but by slowing down they have reduced their power output to a level that their cardiovascular system can handle.

Sorry but none of that explains how my Dad (who is over 70) is somehow capable of riding over Hardknott Pass just because he can make it up the stairs.

Here's something for you to think about. If you were to add say 30kg of lead into a rucksack and then try to ride up a steep hill, does leg strength still not have any play in it whatsoever? Oh I forgot. It's all technique and cardio fitness right?

Bustacapp

Rolf F wrote:

Bustacapp wrote:

I've thought about it. Won't lie. But there's only 1 hill which hurts me to the point where I'd give anything to have a lower geared bike.

Well, there you go. You live in flat country and there is only one difficult hill and unless you do repeats of it, you only have to cope with it once per ride. Go somewhere hilly and you might have 10 hills like that in 50 miles - then whether or not you can get up it once using 39-25 becomes pretty much irrelevant; you have to keep doing it.

You have made a startlingly incorrect assumption.

I rode over 3100ft on Sunday morning, so how the hell do I live in 'flat country' ???

tgotb

Bustacapp wrote:

TGOTB wrote:

Bustacapp wrote:

By 'hills' does that include 20 - 30% gradients? Because if so then I've seen plenty of poor souls pushing their bikes so they must live in bungalows according to your logic!!

Not at all. The reason they can't get up the hills has nothing to do with their leg strength, which is what everyone on this thread is trying to tell you.

Simple thought experiment:
Part 1: Put bike on steep hill (let's say 30%). Stand astride bike. Put foot on pedal and stand on pedal. For the sake of simplicity, assume someone is holding the bike for you, stopping it falling over or rolling backward. One of three things will happen:
1. You're unable to stand on the pedal, you just can't straighten your leg => you have insufficient leg strength.
2. You stand on pedal, but bike doesn't move forward => you have sufficient leg strength, but are geared too highly.
3. You stand on pedal, bike moves forward => Well done, you have sufficient leg strength and potentially have appropriate gearing too, now go on to part 2.

Part 2: Start pedalling. Now one of three things will happen.
1. You reach the top of the hill => Well done! Now go and have a cup of coffee and a piece of cake.
2. You grind to a halt; your heart feels like it's trying to escape from your chest and your lungs are burning => You need more cardiovascular fitness. Do more riding (any riding), just make sure you push yourself. When you've done this a few times, come back and try again.
3. You grind to a halt; your heart and lungs feel ok but your legs are burning => your leg muscles lack endurance. Try short hill reps, and consider using a lower gear/higher cadence.

Assuming you got to part 2, note that, until you ground to a halt, you were actually going faster than all the people who got off and walked. The real problem is that you couldn't sustain the power output required to continue riding; by getting off and walking, those people are using the same amount of leg strength as before, but by slowing down they have reduced their power output to a level that their cardiovascular system can handle.

Sorry but none of that explains how my Dad (who is over 70) is somehow capable of riding over Hardknott Pass just because he can make it up the stairs.

Here's something for you to think about. If you were to add say 30kg of lead into a rucksack and then try to ride up a steep hill, does leg strength still not have any play in it whatsoever? Oh I forgot. It's all technique and cardio fitness right?

All explained above (read part 2).

"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." - Jonathan Swift

Paul E

If you have no engine, it doesn't matter what size legs you have.

Ok put it this way, mr universe can squat loads more weight on a machine than me, but I know who would climb faster, but but he has more leg strength etc etc

rolf_f

Bustacapp wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Bustacapp wrote:

I've thought about it. Won't lie. But there's only 1 hill which hurts me to the point where I'd give anything to have a lower geared bike.

Well, there you go. You live in flat country and there is only one difficult hill and unless you do repeats of it, you only have to cope with it once per ride. Go somewhere hilly and you might have 10 hills like that in 50 miles - then whether or not you can get up it once using 39-25 becomes pretty much irrelevant; you have to keep doing it.

You have made a startlingly incorrect assumption.

I rode over 3100ft on Sunday morning, so how the hell do I live in 'flat country' ???

I do apologise. You mention places like Rainford and Shaley Brow a lot (and seem to regard Shaley Brow as a big hill). I assumed you lived around there (it's pretty flat there) so apologies if you don't. 3000 feet is an OK total but it means little without distance as well. 100 feet per mile is usually regarded as hilly so I guess if you did that 3000 feet in 30 miles then your area was indeed hilly though not sure how you'd manage to do that in that particular area.

meanredspider

It's a balance of course. I expect if you put Chris Hoy in front of a short sharp hill, he'd scream up it - IIRC the man can generate 1300W - that's born of strength and fitness. Just don't ask him to sustain it on a TdF mountain stage. The same applies to running sprinters and the long distance runners - totally difference physique. As I remember it (and I stand to be corrected here) there also something to be said for big muscles for short-sharp exertions in terms of energy storage. But long-term, especially where hills are concerned, it doesn't pay.

Bustacapp

Rolf F wrote:

I do apologise. You mention places like Rainford and Shaley Brow a lot (and seem to regard Shaley Brow as a big hill). I assumed you lived around there (it's pretty flat there) so apologies if you don't. 3000 feet is an OK total but it means little without distance as well. 100 feet per mile is usually regarded as hilly so I guess if you did that 3000 feet in 30 miles then your area was indeed hilly though not sure how you'd manage to do that in that particular area.

Shaley Brow is not big but quite steep. And yes that's the hill that stings me most, but what of it? I'm not sure why you think it difficult to hit over 3000ft in that area and beyond (Parbold etc). Perhaps you don't know the area as well as you think you do? I was over 40 miles but I can cram about 2500ft in far less.

meanredspider

Rolf F wrote:

100 feet per mile is usually regarded as hilly

I hadn't heard that before but, assuming you need to come down what you've gone up, you're really talking about 200ft per mile for the "up" bits. That's 1400ft in 7 miles. Personally, I'd say that was more than "hilly". I think the Marmotte is "only" 150 feet per mile. In fact, the Fred Whitton only just scrapes into your hilly definition at 12500ft in 118 miles.

Bustacapp

TGOTB wrote:

All explained above (read part 2).

"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." - Jonathan Swift

Nope. Not reading it again.

“Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves.” ― George Gordon Byron

Bustacapp

meanredspider wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

100 feet per mile is usually regarded as hilly

I hadn't heard that before but, assuming you need to come down what you've gone up, you're really talking about 200ft per mile for the "up" bits. That's 1400ft in 7 miles. Personally, I'd say that was more than "hilly". I think the Marmotte is "only" 150 feet per mile. In fact, the Fred Whitton only just scrapes into your hilly definition at 12500ft in 118 miles.

I think he must live here:

cyclingprop

The challenge isn't if you can shift 30kg of lead (lard?) up a hill, its how fast you can go up as it, and your perceived exertion.

TGOTB made the point about sustained effort, which is different to raw strength, and is the reason why a one-rep max effort in the gym is different to 5x, 10x etc. Cycling is 1000s of reps.

rolf_f

meanredspider wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

100 feet per mile is usually regarded as hilly

I hadn't heard that before but, assuming you need to come down what you've gone up, you're really talking about 200ft per mile for the "up" bits. That's 1400ft in 7 miles. Personally, I'd say that was more than "hilly". I think the Marmotte is "only" 150 feet per mile. In fact, the Fred Whitton only just scrapes into your hilly definition at 12500ft in 118 miles.

No, just 100 feet of up. And the Fred is less hilly than you might think. The climbs are really tough but there are long gaps of relatively flat terrain between the climbs which reduce the total - I think the Keswick Sportive has a far higher climb per distance ratio but it is a far easier sportive. But 100 ft per mile it isn't my definition - just what people post on here irrc when the question is asked. I did 80 miles into the Dales on Sunday and that only generated 5000 feet of climbing. But although it had a couple of pretty serious climbs (around Malham), the rest undulated and I certainly don't think it was a particularly hilly ride.

Bustacapp wrote:

Shaley Brow is not big but quite steep. And yes that's the hill that stings me most, but what of it? I'm not sure why you think it difficult to hit over 3000ft in that area and beyond (Parbold etc). Perhaps you don't know the area as well as you think you do? I was over 40 miles but I can cram about 2500ft in far less.

I don't know it that well - but I do know that the area is known as the West Lancashire plain - plain being a geographical term for somewhere fairly flat! Maybe it isn't as bad as the fens but hilly it isn't.

As a matter of interest, why are you always so aggressive and sarcastic all the time? You're blood pressure must be a continual source of worry!

stu-bim

Rolf F wrote:

As a matter of interest, why are you always so aggressive and sarcastic all the time? You're blood pressure must be a continual source of worry!

You can't have a name like Bustacapp and not be aggresive

Bustacapp

Rolf F wrote:

but I do know that the area is known as the West Lancashire plain - plain being a geographical term for somewhere fairly flat! Maybe it isn't as bad as the fens but hilly it isn't.

This post shows you have no idea what you're talking about.

cyclingprop

Bustacapp wrote:

cyclingprop wrote:

30kg of lead (lard?)

Another idiot and his idiot assumption. I bet you're fat.

Regardless of what I am, my relative intelligence to yours or otherwise... I bet I'm happier and less stressed than you.

Bustacapp

cyclingprop wrote:

Regardless of what I am, my relative intelligence to yours or otherwise... I bet I'm happier and less stressed than you.

I bet you're not!

itboffin

Hold on a sec



That's better, carry on

tgotb

itboffin wrote:

Hold on a sec

Kieran_Burns

Is anyone else less worried about the hills and more about the huge hole being dug?

Just asking....

cyclingprop

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Is anyone else less worried about the hills and more about the huge hole being dug?

Just asking....

Can you get spades in triple? 8)

stu-bim

Bustacapp wrote:

I bet you're not!

I can't tell if you're really funny or really mad

itboffin

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Is anyone else less worried about the hills and more about the huge hole being dug?

Just asking....

What about this 30/34 gear combo you've been hiding eh!?

Leave you're cape at the door please :twisted: