Climbing

markhewitt1978

drlodge wrote:

Wise words. When I've been beaten on a hill, its not my legs that have given up, but my lungs. Noobs may have an issue with strength in their legs but for most of us its managing to put out the required power over a sustained period of time.

Agreed, it's always because I'm completely out of breath, of course if I had more efficient muscles I wouldn't be using so much energy in the first place.

meanredspider

markhewitt1978 wrote:

drlodge wrote:

Wise words. When I've been beaten on a hill, its not my legs that have given up, but my lungs. Noobs may have an issue with strength in their legs but for most of us its managing to put out the required power over a sustained period of time.

Agreed, it's always because I'm completely out of breath, of course if I had more efficient muscles I wouldn't be using so much energy in the first place.

Yup - efficient muscles aren't big muscles but muscles that are adapted to the task - that's your aerobic system (and, to some extent, your neurological systems too). You need to train them to that task.

rolf_f

BigMat wrote:

The climbs on the Fred are very tough, especially if its hot.

They are also very tough if it is sleeting!

meanredspider wrote:

OK - I don't agree with the "higher gear and mash" approach myself and here is why: what you will do is build stronger, heavier, legs. What you need to do instead is to build your aerobic capacity. Take Wiggins and Froome - they climb like goats but don't have massive legs (sticks would describe their legs best) - what I get they do have is fantastic aerobic capacity. You should be busting your lungs not your quads. I've only recently realised this mistake myself - I have fantastic quads but I have the drag them up the hill and they're heavy. Gear down and spin up. And, to train, spin up steep hills as fast as you can.

Mostly I agree with this but after 100 miles, and despite being a good, flyweight climber my limitation on Hardknott was simply physical strength (or lack of it). I needed stronger legs - the people still on their bikes were pedalling seriously low cadences often on standard cranksets with not especially big cassettes. I was still fairly quick over the last few miles but simple leg strength and gradient defeated me on Hardknott. It's a fairly unusual circumstance but I think there is value in increasing muscle strength.

Ultimately, we are both regretting our weaknesses from opposing ends of the leg spectrum!

I'm planning a couple of ascents of Hardknott and Wrynose this year (albeit not after 100 miles) and I'm trying to get used to climbing at low cadences by using bigger gears. It will hopefully help. I doubt it is going to have any impact on my weight though - my legs might get stronger but it won't cost me in weight as that is always constant.

greg66_tri_v2.0

The issue I see with "stick it in the big gear and mash it" is that you're going to tire your leg muscles out relatively quickly, and once you do the strain will be taken up by your tendons. IOW, I'd expect this approach if taken literally and overdone to fuck your knees royally.

My view that is a good climber has the magic combination of strong but very lean leg muscles, allied to a very low overall body weight and a very high level of aerobic fitness*.

If we could all achieve that with ease, we'd all be riding for a Basque cycling team.


(* There is a parallel with this in running. You have gazelles - the typical African distance runner with a high knee lift, a massive stride and a strong heel kick, who bounces along - like Mirinda Carfrae or Mo Farah. And you have the gliders - low knee lift, low heel kick, shorter stride but much higher cadence - life Chrissie Wellington of those Chinese female 10k track runners from a few years ago. Both can run fast, but there's some suggestion that the glider style maxes out at around 2h45 for a marathon; and the gliders are a very exceptional sight in a long distance track race - the sharp end is dominated by gazelles.
I'm a glider, not a gazelle. But I tried gazelle running, and whilst it does carry me along, and feels like I'm bouncing and covering a big distance with each stride, the amount of movement I have to put my relatively heavy legs through allied to my not insubstantial upper body that they are carrying means that in the end I run out of strength. I felt that if I had strong but skinny legs and a slight upper body build - ie a genetic endowment different to the one I do have - I'd have a better chance of gazelling.
Similar, IMO, with climbing. Ultimately we're limited, or liberated, by our genetics.)

rjsterry

Rolf F wrote:

BigMat wrote:

The climbs on the Fred are very tough, especially if its hot.

They are also very tough if it is sleeting!

meanredspider wrote:

OK - I don't agree with the "higher gear and mash" approach myself and here is why: what you will do is build stronger, heavier, legs. What you need to do instead is to build your aerobic capacity. Take Wiggins and Froome - they climb like goats but don't have massive legs (sticks would describe their legs best) - what I get they do have is fantastic aerobic capacity. You should be busting your lungs not your quads. I've only recently realised this mistake myself - I have fantastic quads but I have the drag them up the hill and they're heavy. Gear down and spin up. And, to train, spin up steep hills as fast as you can.

Mostly I agree with this but after 100 miles, and despite being a good, flyweight climber my limitation on Hardknott was simply physical strength (or lack of it). I needed stronger legs - the people still on their bikes were pedalling seriously low cadences often on standard cranksets with not especially big cassettes. I was still fairly quick over the last few miles but simple leg strength and gradient defeated me on Hardknott. It's a fairly unusual circumstance but I think there is value in increasing muscle strength.

Ultimately, we are both regretting our weaknesses from opposing ends of the leg spectrum!

I'm planning a couple of ascents of Hardknott and Wrynose this year (albeit not after 100 miles) and I'm trying to get used to climbing at low cadences by using bigger gears. It will hopefully help. I doubt it is going to have any impact on my weight though - my legs might get stronger but it won't cost me in weight as that is always constant.

+1. While you will definitely need the spinny climbing style to get you to Hardknott in a reasonable state, when the gradient is 25%+, there is only so low the gears go, and you'll need some strength as well to keep turning. I seem to remember G66 posting something about the steep bits of AdH being too steep to spin up without silly gearing. If you are going to use Whitedown as your stand-in for Hardknott, how about doing a few of laps of Leith Hill or one of the other longer climbs around there beforehand to give a more realistic feel.

warreng

Yep, really, really looking forward to this now

Kieran_Burns

Which brings you onto the climbing bit on the Hardknot switch backs: don't go in close to the bend. It ain't 33% on that bit, nearer bloody 50. Stay as wide as you can and flatten the bend as much as possible.

drlodge

It is true...gears only go so low and once your cadence is down to the 40-50 mark, you're gonna need strength to stop you from stopping.

I've got 34-29 now, I wonder how steep that will let me go (was 34-27).

warreng

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Which brings you onto the climbing bit on the Hardknot switch backs: don't go in close to the bend. It ain't 33% on that bit, nearer bloody 50. Stay as wide as you can and flatten the bend as much as possible.

When I was there yesterday there was already a cyclist who'd given up there and taking a breather. It had the double whammy effect of blocking off the "flatter" route and also forcing me not to stop due to a misplaced sense of pride

meanredspider

The problem with building leg bulk is that it's a viscous circle - bigger legs need more muscle to drive them up hill.

Some of this is, of course, genetic. There's the theory that we're predispositioned to strength or endurance - not both. Sprinters, like Cav, are sprinters not climbers. I'm sure he has plenty of leg strength.

I suggest that if you're struggling on the later climbs then it's just a simple case of not having trained hard enough or fed well enough or you went out too hard too early. If you can normally climb well, not being able to climb isn't because you don't have enough strength. That's nothing to be ashamed about on a ride like that - it's meant to be really tough. It's not for no reason that I'm focusing on losing weight for AD6 and doing lots of long rides.

rolf_f

meanredspider wrote:

I suggest that if you're struggling on the later climbs then it's just a simple case of not having trained hard enough or fed well enough or you went out too hard too early. If you can normally climb well, not being able to climb isn't because you don't have enough strength. That's nothing to be ashamed about on a ride like that - it's meant to be really tough. It's not for no reason that I'm focusing on losing weight for AD6 and doing lots of long rides.

Not in my case. As soon as I got past the steepest bits (and, if you know Hardknott, you know that the less steep bits are only relatively less steep!), I got back on my bike and started overtaking the big legged blokes again! I reckon the walking cost me about 7 minutes at the most on Hardknott. I was still able to maintain a good pace to the end despite that being hilly as well. It was simple leg strength - no ifs and buts. I couldn't turn the cranks at that low cadence. So I was still able to climb and climb well - just not at those gradients.

Other than those bits, I wouldn't say I found it a particularly hard ride - the Pendle Predator a few weeks later did my head in more than the Fred but on that one I was able to stay in the saddle. But then the climbs were smaller but more frequent on that.

And, of course, I'm expecting/hoping to increase leg strength without actually changing my weight! It's worked for me in the past so I'm counting on it working again!

roger_merriman

meanredspider wrote:

The problem with building leg bulk is that it's a viscous circle - bigger legs need more muscle to drive them up hill.

Some of this is, of course, genetic. There's the theory that we're predispositioned to strength or endurance - not both. Sprinters, like Cav, are sprinters not climbers. I'm sure he has plenty of leg strength.

I suggest that if you're struggling on the later climbs then it's just a simple case of not having trained hard enough or fed well enough or you went out too hard too early. If you can normally climb well, not being able to climb isn't because you don't have enough strength. That's nothing to be ashamed about on a ride like that - it's meant to be really tough. It's not for no reason that I'm focusing on losing weight for AD6 and doing lots of long rides.

Sure a lot is genetic, I always found other cyclists remarkably sluggish off the mark from traffic lights and the like, and tended to do better comparatively the steeper the hill gets I may not be fast, but equally I'm fairly untroubled. I grew up with a number of very steep hills close by worse/best half the height of Hardknott over a third of the distance, so learn not to fear steepness though guess where I learnt to hill start....

twist83

meanredspider wrote:

OK - I don't agree with the "higher gear and mash" approach myself and here is why: what you will do is build stronger, heavier, legs. What you need to do instead is to build your aerobic capacity. Take Wiggins and Froome - they climb like goats but don't have massive legs (sticks would describe their legs best) - what I get they do have is fantastic aerobic capacity. You should be busting your lungs not your quads. I've only recently realised this mistake myself - I have fantastic quads but I have the drag them up the hill and they're heavy. Gear down and spin up. And, to train, spin up steep hills as fast as you can.

Agree with this. This has finally clicked with me after 2-3 years road biking. I am/was a MTB rider and obviously a lot of the time pure brute power was needed. As a result my quads and calfs are pretty impressive to look at. On the hills they can only overcome so much.

I hate hills but enjoy the challenge of completing them. Good luck

mpdouglas

If your looking for a great training ground, book yourself a weekend in North Devon here:

http://www.upcottfarm.com/calfshed/

It's my finance director's place. He's very bike friendly - he and I did Ride across Britain in 2012. You can go and train on a whole bunch of relevant climbs such as Challacombe Hill (Climb #7 in the 100 greatest climbs book), and if you follow the coast road from Ilfracombe to Lynmouth (via Combe Martin, Martinhoe, Woody Bay etc) you get a succession of 25% climbs. We did just shy of 3,000 metres of climbing in a 55 mile ride last weekend. The climbs are long, steep and unrelenting, just like Hardknott. And your family won't mind being there as there are great beaches and countryside all around. Even just lounging around at Upcott is a very pleasant way to spend a weekend. If you time it right, it's only a 4 hour drive from SW London.

rick_chasey

If you're a reasonable fitness, climbs like that are more a test of willpower. You'll get up it, if you just do it.

Don't psyche yourself out. Just be very bloody minded and get over the bloody thing.

Once you're there it's too late, and if you focus all your training just on that one bit you'll make it out to be much bigger a part of the route than it actually is.

Just train hard, enjoy the training, and arrive at the startling with reasonable fitness.

Guanajuato

Its not just the gradient. the surface is badly churned in many places, lots of loose stuff and can get extremely slippery. then there's the #bloodymotorists who think they have right of way. I've not braved either yet, but I'm staying at holmrook (about as close as it is possible to live to Eskdale and still be in vague civilisation) once a week, so once the evenings get longer, I've got no excuse. I'll start off with the 'tiddler' that is birker fell first - rather quieter and less brutal.

goonz

I've been selected by my company to ride up the Col du Tourmalet in August so need to begin training hard. I havent climbed a mound let alone a hill all winter so have a lot of work to do.

Am tempted to take the SS up to Swains Lane and attack it a few times or even down to Leith and give that a try.

Pretty apprehensive, not sure how I will do but I know I want to beat everyone else so thats all the motivation i need.

markhewitt1978

Rick Chasey wrote:

If you're a reasonable fitness, climbs like that are more a test of willpower. You'll get up it, if you just do it.

Don't psyche yourself out. Just be very bloody minded and get over the bloody thing.
.

Peth Bank is a famous climb near me which has 20% for a short section, I just about managed it with my hybrid with crazy low gears. I tried it on my road bike and almost fell off, then I avoided it for about 9 months afterwards! I was finally forced into climbing it as it was the only way to get where I needed to go, so I just had the attitude that I'm going to do it, no matter what, and it was much less of a problem than I'd thought! I've done it a couple of times since!

bigmat

Swains Lane won't be all that helpful for something lik ethe Tourmalet. It will be of some assistance in technical aspects of climbing - putting the power down when your weight is over the front, gearing etc, but its really a short sharp burst. The Tourmalet is long, even by Alpine standards, and not massively steep (from recollection) - you'd be better off riding 3 or 4 laps of Richmond Park at threshold with the occasional hill climb thrown in as more of a psychological than a physiological thing.

goonz

Noted, will give that a go too...cheers

ugo.santalucia

goonz wrote:

I've been selected by my company to ride up the Col du Tourmalet in August so need to begin training hard. I havent climbed a mound let alone a hill all winter so have a lot of work to do.

Am tempted to take the SS up to Swains Lane and attack it a few times or even down to Leith and give that a try.

Pretty apprehensive, not sure how I will do but I know I want to beat everyone else so thats all the motivation i need.

You are not a bolt (Usain that is) up a slope, but you have enough fitness to go up the Tourmalet right now (except it's proabably closed for snow until late May). It is a testing climb and you are probably budgeting for a 2 hours effort either from St Marie de Campan or from Luz St Saveur. If you can choose the latter side has the better views and that's the one I would rather tackle, given they are equally difficult. Wouldn't bother with specific training, just make sure you've got low enough gears (a compact with a 27 rear is adequate). You will need the granny sprocket when you get close to 2000 mt, the oxygen goes down and the gradient goes up. It's a beautiful beautiful climb, shame it's in france, if it was in italy you would probably be able to get a decent coffee at the top, while you will have ot make do with a French one... :?

As you are in the area, take a day to climb the Aubisque too, it's even more beautiful

Stag on

I am no sports scientist, albeit that I have some relevant quals via the Army, but the principle of specificity is a good one to follow.

If you're doing a long ride with various short but intense climbs, such as the OP, you should build this into your training.

Last year training for the longer Alpine climbs, those that fared best (from roughly the same starting point, genetic factors aside) were those that built in longer threshold efforts on the flat with intervals on hills, rather than just focusing on climbing. I took to the North downs and did plenty of short climbs but there is nothing there to really compare with one of the bigger continental climbs. It is very much the case of being on the rivet for 45-mins or longer and if you can train to extend this threshold that may have more benefit for the Tourmalet than a quick jaunt up Leith Hill.

rubertoe

basically we all know that sit and spin is better than stand and mash, it is just training our bodies to work aerobically instead of anaerobically.

Also, I'd imagine most people will have the fitness to do these long climbs if they stay within themselves and sit and spin, eat and hydrate properly after that it all boils down to psychology.

goonz

Of course anyone can do them but its about doing them in a respectable time....

The Rookie

I am far from 'very fit' but regularly do two climbs, one is 500ft over 2.2m (fairly continuous gradient), the other 1500ft in 3.7m (with some much 'steeper than average' sections - strava grade 4), it's just getting the right gear you can continually spin.

ugo.santalucia

goonz wrote:

Of course anyone can do them but its about doing them in a respectable time....

I did the Aubisque from Laruns in 1:20 but didn't time the Tourmalet as I had a bad knee and had to stop a few times to stretch my quad... I would assume 1:35 for that

markhewitt1978

goonz wrote:

Of course anyone can do them but its about doing them in a respectable time....

Is it? I think for 'most' just doing them at all is an achievement in itself.

secretsam

goonz wrote:

Of course anyone can do them but its about doing them on your bike rather than in the back of an ambulance

FTFY

hegyestomi

The Rookie wrote:

I am far from 'very fit' but regularly do two climbs, one is 500ft over 2.2m (fairly continuous gradient), the other 1500ft in 3.7m (with some much 'steeper than average' sections - strava grade 4), it's just getting the right gear you can continually spin.

Where is that if I may ask?

vermin

meanredspider wrote:

OK - I don't agree with the "higher gear and mash" approach myself and here is why: what you will do is build stronger, heavier, legs. What you need to do instead is to build your aerobic capacity. Take Wiggins and Froome - they climb like goats but don't have massive legs (sticks would describe their legs best) - what I get they do have is fantastic aerobic capacity. You should be busting your lungs not your quads. I've only recently realised this mistake myself - I have fantastic quads but I have the drag them up the hill and they're heavy. Gear down and spin up. And, to train, spin up steep hills as fast as you can.

In the ideal world I would agree, but here, in the UK, I think the problem is that we simply don't have long enough climbs to really test the aerobic system. My prep for last year's etape was to do multiple repeats of the Horseshoe Pass (1000 ft in a little under 3 miles) in N.Wales (say 10 reps to exhaustion). But by halfway up the Annecy Semnoz, I realised that my aerobic training had been seriously compromised by all those 5 minute downhill rests between each 15-20 minute climb. I got up the Semnoz without walking, but it took over an hour and it wasn't pretty. Next time, I would do my aerobic training on the flat or on a turbo and use the climbs for strength work, as suggested above.