How Can I Get Better At Going Up Hills?

smoggysteve

I know what I do and it works for me. Without getting into the exact physics of it. I make sure I am exerting a force with both legs at the same time. And when I am climbing out of the saddle I tend to pull up with more force than I push down to gain speed. Gravity tends to help on the down stroke.

BTW I am pretty good at climbing so I must be doing something right.

antfly

You might think you are pulling up but I doubt it.

robbo2011

OP, how often are you cycling? I ask because for the last couple of years, I was only going out at the weekend and there was really no improvement in hill climbing or average speeds. It is only this year where I have started going out 3-4 times a week that there has been a significant improvement in my hill climbing.

I am now smashing Strava PRs on virtually every climb and my speeds and VAM are significantly better.

hatch87

Staying with the off topic pedal stroke. I always thought that you should pull back on the stroke, sort of like scraping mud off your shoe.

imposter2.0

ct8282 wrote:

I appreciate the part where it says 'being able to leg press a VW is not useful on a bike' but the simple fact is that having more strength helps to put more power through the cranks. This cannot be denied.

You are confusing strength with power - the two are not the same. Cycling is sub-maximal and strength is not a limiter in endurance cycling.

This thread here contains all the links you need: viewtopic.php?f=40013&t=12920384 - although if you only read one link, read this one: http://www.cyclingforums.com/t/126133/g ... rove-power - all the info you need to understand the issue is in there. And if you don't want to bother reading the link, just read this bit:

Going to the gym and doing e.g., weight training *will* help build strength. However, [ECP] endurance cycling performance (e.g., RR, TT, MTB, etc) is *not* limited by strength, unless you have a functional disability.

Force requirements for ECP are quite low, and can be met by untrained, sedentary, healthy, age, gender, and mass matched controls. Additionally, peak power tends on average to not vary between racers and healthy, non-trained controls.

Riding at typical race speeds and powers, can be met by most people (untrained). Strength, is defined as the maximal force or tension a muscle or group of muscles can generate, and thus as described by Hill's Force-Velocity curve maximal force (strength) can only be generated at 0 (or very close to it) velocity. In other words, Hills F-V curve shows that force and velocity are inversely proportional to each other -- at high (crank) velocity, force is very low (or zero), and very high force can only be generated at zero velocity (think of pushing against an immovable object such as a brick wall). At normal pedalling velocity (or even at low cadences e.g., 30 revs/min) forces are very low.

Power (output) is the sum of all the forces that are required to move your bike forward at a given velocity under given conditions. ECP requires low to moderate power, which most people can meet. however, these powers need to be maintained for long periods of time, and it is this that causes the difficulty. In other words, you/i/others can ride at the same power as e.g., Amstrong/Simoni/Ullrich (whoever) on climbs such as Alpe d'Huez, however, we won't be able to sustain that power for as long (unless you're in with a chance of winning the TdF). For example, an untrained person, might last for 30-secs, i can do about 5-mins and obviously, the likes of Armstrong manage it for 38-mins.

Therefore, none of our performance is limited by strength in ECP, but by limits of lactate threshold and VO2max. these are trained by cycling from a period of several minutes to several hours.

Intervals that increase VO2max and maximal aerobic power (MAP) are 4-mins at above 10-mile TT effort. Sustainable power is developed with intervals of one to four x 15 to 30-mins, and you also want/need to do sustained efforts of 90+ mins at a fairly brisk effort.

kampernaut

robbo2011 wrote:

OP, how often are you cycling?

3 times a week. 1-2 hours per session mid week and a long ride at the weekend.

Since starting, I've simply been trying to increase the time I can spend in the saddle and the distance I can cover rather than trying to get faster or better at going up hills. All my training so far has been about keeping my heart rate below 70%HRR whenever possible for progressively longer periods of time. That's because I decided this was necessary for me to complete that century with such a short preparation time (it used to work for me with long distance running). I didn't want to incorporate intervals because I felt I would put myself at significant risk of injury as a beginner and I had no time to spare to recover from injury. Naturally I've noticed some improvement in that time.

Now that my first challenge has been completed and I've discovered I like riding a bike, I've decided that I should try to get a bit better. I've chosen hills and going a little faster as my next training focus hence the original post. I think I'll start by making one of the mid week sessions either hill repeats or intervals and see what effect that has.

hatch87

kampernaut wrote:

robbo2011 wrote:

OP, how often are you cycling?

3 times a week. 1-2 hours per session mid week and a long ride at the weekend.

Since starting, I've simply been trying to increase the time I can spend in the saddle and the distance I can cover rather than trying to get faster or better at going up hills. All my training so far has been about keeping my heart rate below 70%HRR whenever possible for progressively longer periods of time. That's because I decided this was necessary for me to complete that century with such a short preparation time (it used to work for me with long distance running). I didn't want to incorporate intervals because I felt I would put myself at significant risk of injury as a beginner and I had no time to spare to recover from injury. Naturally I've noticed some improvement in that time.

Now that my first challenge has been completed and I've discovered I like riding a bike, I've decided that I should try to get a bit better. I've chosen hills and going a little faster as my next training focus hence the original post. I think I'll start by making one of the mid week sessions either hill repeats or intervals and see what effect that has.

You're a better man than me, tried keeping mine at 75%-80% once I got sick of it after an hour and had to go faster

kampernaut

hatch87 wrote:

kampernaut wrote:

robbo2011 wrote:

OP, how often are you cycling?

3 times a week. 1-2 hours per session mid week and a long ride at the weekend.

Since starting, I've simply been trying to increase the time I can spend in the saddle and the distance I can cover rather than trying to get faster or better at going up hills. All my training so far has been about keeping my heart rate below 70%HRR whenever possible for progressively longer periods of time. That's because I decided this was necessary for me to complete that century with such a short preparation time (it used to work for me with long distance running). I didn't want to incorporate intervals because I felt I would put myself at significant risk of injury as a beginner and I had no time to spare to recover from injury. Naturally I've noticed some improvement in that time.

Now that my first challenge has been completed and I've discovered I like riding a bike, I've decided that I should try to get a bit better. I've chosen hills and going a little faster as my next training focus hence the original post. I think I'll start by making one of the mid week sessions either hill repeats or intervals and see what effect that has.

You're a better man than me, tried keeping mine at 75%-80% once I got sick of it after an hour and had to go faster

I'll agree that it takes quite a bit of discipline but if you stick with it, you get faster and faster at that low heart rate. Counterintuitive but true. The ideal is to alternate slow and hard sessions.

smidsy

ct8282 wrote:

I'm not going to argue with you seasoned riders as I am not an expert on riding and do not proclaim to be, at all. But I can't accept the concept that weight training serves no useful purpose in cycling.

Quality

And as demonstrated by the earlier post wrong

volociroldster

Hill's ain't for everybody and comparing yourself with those around you may be like asking an apple why it can't be a pear. There was a good feature on the Stelvio pass in the Cycle Show a while back which shows how 3 different cyclists, all of whom are at a decent standard, dealt with the climb and supported one another up to the point when one had to fall back. As you are clearly no slouch why not cycle at your own pace and concentrate on cadence whilst experimenting with gears. I myself am 95kg and have given up on feeling inadequate when a 75kg lightweight whizzes past. Bottom line is that my legs are pushing an extra 20kg than they are and i'll never get my former rugby player build to match a lot of the svelte speedsters. Happy riding.

kingstonian

Sounds brutally obvious, but getting better at going up hills takes plenty of practice of, well, going up hills. If you know someone that is a good climber, see if he/she will go on a few training rides with you, and sit on their wheel. See when they change gear, what route do they pick on the road, do they sit or stand (and if they stand, when is it and ask them why). Don't be afraid of going up the hill in a really easy gear - as you get better, the gearing can be increased.

Good climbing has three requirements - the right fitness, the right technique and the right mental attitude.

TheSmithers

Kingstonian wrote:

Good climbing has three requirements - the right fitness, the right technique and the right mental attitude.

This.

It's amazing how much your mental side actually contributes to physical performance. This is the case in any sport. It's very easy on the approach to a big climb to mentally write yourself off before you've even begun. I've done this myself, and still continue to do it sometimes. However, if you get in the right mindset, it can make a huge difference.

I used to do weight training and was told by more than one instructor that when you reach the point of failure on any lift, it's usually your head telling you you've had enough, when in fact you muscles are probably capable of another rep or two.

markhewitt1978

I do wonder sometimes what the best approach is with my local hills, i.e. go up in a relatively easy gear, which allows me to usually set a personal record - or crank it up a couple of cogs which would slow me down a little but give me a better workout.

mpatts

TheSmithers wrote:

Kingstonian wrote:

Good climbing has three requirements - the right fitness, the right technique and the right mental attitude.

This.

It's amazing how much your mental side actually contributes to physical performance. This is the case in any sport. It's very easy on the approach to a big climb to mentally write yourself off before you've even begun. I've done this myself, and still continue to do it sometimes. However, if you get in the right mindset, it can make a huge difference.

I used to do weight training and was told by more than one instructor that when you reach the point of failure on any lift, it's usually your head telling you you've had enough, when in fact you muscles are probably capable of another rep or two.

When I do hill reps/intervals, my rule is always to do "One more than I want to"

I have a hill on my fave ride that I sometimes get to the top of before I realise I am on it - when I know it's there it always feels tough!