How to train for 15%+ hills
Comments
-
ForumNewbie wrote:I'm in my late 50s and not that fit but I also feel that I've got poor leg strength as I struggle to push moderately big gears at a decent cadence unless I've got a tailwind or on a slight decline. I'm 5'8" and 70kg so not overweight, but I see other cyclists who appear a lot heavier and also not very fit, but are able to push bigger gears at higher cadence.
If you have two cyclists the same size and weight and the same level of fitness, would the one with stronger legs not be able to cycle faster?
Did you not read my earlier post? The answer to your question is already in there. I can only suggest that you do the same forum search that I suggested earlier. It's not leg strength, and it certainly isn't some fake left/right power balance. What gets you up hills is the repeated application of relatively low levels of force for the duration of whatever climb you are trying to get up. The rate at which you can apply this force to the pedals is called 'power'. And how much of it you can apply and how long you can apply it for is loosely called 'aerobic fitness'. Other descriptions are available, I expect.0 -
No need to get stroppy. I did read your earlier post. I am not disputing what you are saying - just trying to understand why leg strength is not important. If I'm on a 15% climb or greater, I feel that I need a lot of force to get any sort of decent cadence even in my lowest gears. If you do put in the miles and do the right training and get fitter, thereby increasing your cadence, would you not expect to develop more muscles in your legs anyway, thereby increasing leg strength?Imposter wrote:ForumNewbie wrote:I'm in my late 50s and not that fit but I also feel that I've got poor leg strength as I struggle to push moderately big gears at a decent cadence unless I've got a tailwind or on a slight decline. I'm 5'8" and 70kg so not overweight, but I see other cyclists who appear a lot heavier and also not very fit, but are able to push bigger gears at higher cadence.
If you have two cyclists the same size and weight and the same level of fitness, would the one with stronger legs not be able to cycle faster?
Did you not read my earlier post? The answer to your question is already in there. I can only suggest that you do the same forum search that I suggested earlier. It's not leg strength, and it certainly isn't some fake left/right power balance. What gets you up hills is the repeated application of relatively low levels of force for the duration of whatever climb you are trying to get up. The rate at which you can apply this force to the pedals is called 'power'. And how much of it you can apply and how long you can apply it for is loosely called 'aerobic fitness'. Other descriptions are available, I expect.0 -
ForumNewbie wrote:No need to get stroppy. I did read your earlier post. I am not disputing what you are saying - just trying to understand why leg strength is not important. If I'm on a 15% climb or greater, I feel that I need a lot of force to get any sort of decent cadence even in my lowest gears. If you do put in the miles and do the right training and get fitter, thereby increasing your cadence, would you not expect to develop more muscles in your legs anyway, thereby be able to push bigger gears at higher cadence?
The inclusion of a question mark is not an indication of 'stroppiness'. It's an indication of a question, as I thought my earlier post was actually pretty clear. You are confusing strength with power. If you look up the definitions of both, you will see that one is important and the other isn't, in this context. As I said before, the average pedal forces involved in climbing yer typical alpine col are reported as being around 15kg per side or thereabouts. Assuming you can already stand on one leg, bend your knee and then hop - then you are already supporting several times more than 15kg with that single leg. So your legs can already support loads massively in excess of 15kg - so why do they need to be any stronger?
Like I said, power is where it is at (or strictly speaking, power v weight when going up hill). The actual strength demands of climbing are demonstrably very low, to the point where almost anyone (cyclist or not) already has the required level of strength. What they won't have is the aerobic capacity or threshold tolerance of someone with better fitness.
This forum is chock-full of threads on strength, so a search is worthwhile - however, this one is a good starter: viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12753875, as is this one too - viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12947041, lots of good info on p1.0 -
Why do bigger riders generally produce more power ?[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0
-
I found that a winter of spin classes improved my climbing no ends. Before that I couldnt do more than a few seconds standing out of the saddle, but that winter helped me find my personal rhythm and technique for getting out of the saddle, to the point that I can continue almost indefinately now and when it gets really steep I am better off standing, even for long periods, with just a bit of sitty down to provide a bit of variety and switch the muscles that are being worked hardest for some respite.
I also found that going up less steep climbs repeatedly but trying to do them one gear higher allowed me to train with similar loads to going up a steeper climb in lower gear but with the option to bail out half way up if thats all I can do before switching to a lower gear and still completing the climb so that I dont have the frustration of having to get off and push.
I do notice they are easier the closer I get to my optimum weight too.
But most important if finding the rhythm that suits you - if you hit that sweet spot you can almost forget what you are doing and your body will continue on auto-pilot.0 -
DeVlaeminck wrote:Why do bigger riders generally produce more power ?
In physics terms its because they are able to produce more momentum. Momentum is mass x velocity. According to the more gruesome parts of the web. A human leg weighs approx 17.5% of the total body weight. So a 100kg rider has 35kg of leg force being applied or 10kg more mass pushing on his pedals than a 70kg rider. Add the fact that they tend to have larger cardio systems, longer bigger muscles, due to being bigger, more stored energy, the ability to leverage other parts of the body etc..
short answer "fat" legs.
of course it counts against them when gravity works its magic.0 -
In terms of climbing, I'm not sure that's even valid. Lots of examples of small, powerful climbers. Regardless of size though, most of the top climbers are defined by their weight...DeVlaeminck wrote:Why do bigger riders generally produce more power ?0 -
i struggle with your thoughts Imposter, why have i got excellent muscle definition (built up over time) if leg strength is unimportant? to me, sustainable leg strength AND aerobic fitness go hand in hand.
So i can build up fantastic aerobic fitness on a trainer over winter, yet those first few rides up some steep hills absolutely kill me, yet i am aerobically fit?
bike specific leg strength, as opposed to gym work is imho very important.
Otherwise a good runner with great aerobic fitness, would hop on a bike and do very well (as they can hop along all day on one leg) but they cant, what i see is that the the runner can cycle away using their fitness and then they quickly fade, because they haven't the leg cycling specific strength to continue.0 -
Have you read some of the other threads?
Also - what is 'sustainable leg strength' ?? I have never heard of that before. Sustainable power, perhaps? All of your descriptions of 'leg strength' are actually descriptions of sustainable power. If you can stand up out of a chair, as most people can, then you already have all the 'leg strength' you need to cycle at a high level.
Couple more links to useful info here - well worth a read and will help you understand the issues involved:
http://www.aboc.com.au/tips-and-hints/w ... ce-anymore
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/fitness/ ... engthstern0 -
diy wrote:DeVlaeminck wrote:Why do bigger riders generally produce more power ?
In physics terms its because they are able to produce more momentum. Momentum is mass x velocity. According to the more gruesome parts of the web. A human leg weighs approx 17.5% of the total body weight. So a 100kg rider has 35kg of leg force being applied or 10kg more mass pushing on his pedals than a 70kg rider. Add the fact that they tend to have larger cardio systems, longer bigger muscles, due to being bigger, more stored energy, the ability to leverage other parts of the body etc..
short answer "fat" legs.
of course it counts against them when gravity works its magic.
I agree with the last part of your explanation "tend to have larger cardio systems, longer bigger muscles, due to being bigger, more stored energy..." This is basically it. A bigger rider has a bigger engine (on average).
The first bit about producing momentum is a bit of an odd way to look at it. A rider's momentum is something they 'have' at a given velocity. It doesn't say anything about what power they can or can't produce. Chris Froome produces more power than me, but I have more mass. You also suggest that the force applied to the pedals is only dependant on the mass of the leg of the rider. This is weird analysis. If that were true, then the only muscles that would be contracting during a pedal stroke would be to lift the leg to the top of the stroke, which is clearly not the case.0 -
Imposter wrote:Have you read some of the other threads?
Also - what is 'sustainable leg strength' ?? I have never heard of that before. Sustainable power, perhaps? All of your descriptions of 'leg strength' are actually descriptions of sustainable power. If you can stand up out of a chair, as most people can, then you already have all the 'leg strength' you need to cycle at a high level.
Couple more links to useful info here - well worth a read and will help you understand the issues involved:
http://www.aboc.com.au/tips-and-hints/w ... ce-anymore
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/fitness/ ... engthstern
Totally agree... "sustainable leg strength" is power.
I suspect that the confusion comes from the experience on the bike. What you 'feel' is the loss of strength. You simply can't push the pedals around any more. But this really is a LOSS of strength due to lactate accumulation. Lactate accumulates and has the effect that your muscles can no longer contract with the same force that they can when you're fresh. So, the limiting factor isn't strength, but lactate accumulation and your ability to tollerate it.
As various have said, if you can hop on one leg then you've got he basic strenth.0 -
Lookyhere wrote:i struggle with your thoughts Imposter, why have i got excellent muscle definition (built up over time) if leg strength is unimportant? to me, sustainable leg strength AND aerobic fitness go hand in hand.
So i can build up fantastic aerobic fitness on a trainer over winter, yet those first few rides up some steep hills absolutely kill me, yet i am aerobically fit?
bike specific leg strength, as opposed to gym work is imho very important.
Otherwise a good runner with great aerobic fitness, would hop on a bike and do very well (as they can hop along all day on one leg) but they cant, what i see is that the the runner can cycle away using their fitness and then they quickly fade, because they haven't the leg cycling specific strength to continue.
There are various reasons why a fit runner would struggle cycling. Let's be honest, you can't really say for sure that it is down to absolute strength.
If you find that hills are really hard after a winter of indoor training, all that tells you is that you're missing specificity in your training. You said it yourself, you build up great aerobic fitness. What about anearobic power and lactate tollerance?0 -
Alex99 wrote:Lookyhere wrote:i struggle with your thoughts Imposter, why have i got excellent muscle definition (built up over time) if leg strength is unimportant? to me, sustainable leg strength AND aerobic fitness go hand in hand.
So i can build up fantastic aerobic fitness on a trainer over winter, yet those first few rides up some steep hills absolutely kill me, yet i am aerobically fit?
bike specific leg strength, as opposed to gym work is imho very important.
Otherwise a good runner with great aerobic fitness, would hop on a bike and do very well (as they can hop along all day on one leg) but they cant, what i see is that the the runner can cycle away using their fitness and then they quickly fade, because they haven't the leg cycling specific strength to continue.
There are various reasons why a fit runner would struggle cycling. Let's be honest, you can't really say for sure that it is down to absolute strength.
If you find that hills are really hard after a winter of indoor training, all that tells you is that you're missing specificity in your training. You said it yourself, you build up great aerobic fitness. What about anearobic power and lactate tollerance?
it cannot be down to strength because you ve both said strength isnt a limiting factor, i would say it down to the specificity of the training, within the leg muscles and nothing to do with CV fitness, which between the runner and cyclist would be similar.
i'm not climbing anaerobically and the climbs are not long enough for lactate tolerance to be an issue, i'm not talking about long steady climbs below say 6/7% either but the steeper ones 10% +
PM testing doesnt show i m producing a higher wattage over 3, 5 or 20 mins yet my climbing improves, what has changed?
Plenty of coaches do advocate weight training over winter for the endurance athlete too.
its an old debate though and i guess we have our views based on experience.0 -
Lookyhere wrote:its an old debate though and i guess we have our views based on experience.
To be fair, some have their views based on science. The point is that pushing harder on the pedals does not require stronger legs, it requires better fitness. We already have several times more strength than is required, we just need the cv fitness to be able to deliver a small fraction of that to the pedals.....repeatedly.0 -
When I describe improving leg strength this is short hand increasing the power you can sustain. To build power output you have to build your muscles. Muscles "strengthen" when loaded. Climbing at low cadence loads them alot and build those muscles up. But then doing other interval work you turn that into improved power outputs by improving your CV fittness, lactate threshold e.t.c. Which is why the hill rep sessions involve climbing at 40 rpm and at higher cadences sitting down and standing up with the last couple of passes being as fast as you can go to build your CV fitness.
The method I use is a bit like doing gym work over winter which is why I do it on a bike as I hate the idea of a gym.
Also off road riding is a good way to build your climbing ability as off road riding works other muscles that road riding does not do so much and these muscles groups are needed when you are more active on the bike on a climb. I am waiting for the flaming here.
This is what I have been trying to describe all along. It does work.http://www.thecycleclinic.co.uk -wheel building and other stuff.0 -
thecycleclinic wrote:When I describe improving leg strength this is short hand increasing the power you can sustain.
Shorthand or not, 'leg strength' is completely the wrong interpretation of power, in cycling terms.thecycleclinic wrote:To build power output you have to build your muscles.
This is simply not true, regardless of whether it is 'shorthand', or not.thecycleclinic wrote:Climbing at low cadence loads them alot and build those muscles up.
It doesn't though. You would have to explain why you think that 'loading' muscles at levels significantly below their maximal capacity would 'build them up'. Typically, the only thing that builds muscle (ie promotes hypertrophy) is working them at maximal or beyond maximal capacity - and riding a bike at any speed, cadence or effort level will not get them anywhere near that. In any case, there's evidence to suggest that low cadence work offers no additional benefit than training at a 'regular', or 'normal' cadence - and when you consider that in the context of the relatively low level demand that cycling places on 'strength', it begins to make a lot of sense. And besides, training at normal cadence has all the advantages of specificity, which was mentioned earlier.
This is possibly just another example of different understandings of the terms being used - but on a forum like this it is probably important to get them right.0 -
Imposter wrote:Lookyhere wrote:its an old debate though and i guess we have our views based on experience.
To be fair, some have their views based on science. The point is that pushing harder on the pedals does not require stronger legs, it requires better fitness. We already have several times more strength than is required, we just need the cv fitness to be able to deliver a small fraction of that to the pedals.....repeatedly.
i am not saying you are wrong but i just dont get it!
you say cycling doesnt build muscles as it doesnt load them? so why have i got very muscular legs ? and back in the day, lost fat & gained leg girth as i got better at cycling? (i used to measure my legs and still have my old training book)
as i ve gotten older, my muscles have reduced and yet despite maintaining CV fitness, i am slower at everything....
(short and long duration)
common sense would say that if you can apply more force on a pedal (& that means initial strength) and build cv fitness, then you ll be able to push a bigger gear, at the same cadence, for longer?
otherwise my daughter who has a great power weight ratio and CV fitness would beat me up steep climbs but she cant because i can apply more force (as i am stronger in the leg) and push a bigger gear at a similar cadence to her and women would be able to match men on a short climb but they cant either (generally speaking) because they are not as strong.
NB the difference between us is lessening every year booo hooo!0 -
Lookyhere wrote:Imposter wrote:Lookyhere wrote:its an old debate though and i guess we have our views based on experience.
To be fair, some have their views based on science. The point is that pushing harder on the pedals does not require stronger legs, it requires better fitness. We already have several times more strength than is required, we just need the cv fitness to be able to deliver a small fraction of that to the pedals.....repeatedly.
i am not saying you are wrong but i just dont get it!
you say cycling doesnt build muscles as it doesnt load them? so why have i got very muscular legs ? and back in the day, lost fat & gained leg girth as i got better at cycling? (i used to measure my legs and still have my old training book)
as i ve gotten older, my muscles have reduced and yet despite maintaining CV fitness, i am slower at everything.... (short and long duration)
common sense would say that if you can apply more force on a pedal (& that means initial strength) and build cv fitness, then you ll be able to push a bigger gear, at the same cadence, for longer?
otherwise my daughter who has a great power weight ratio and CV fitness would beat me up steep climbs but she cant because i can apply more force (as i am stronger in the leg) and push a bigger gear at a similar cadence to her and women would be able to match men on a short climb but they cant either (generally speaking) because they are not as strong.
NB the difference between us is lessening every year booo hooo!
Muscle size isn't strongly (ahem!) correlated with maximal strength. You've also got capillary density (associated with aerobic capacity) and glycogen storage capacity to consider. In fact, a significant amount of your muscle mass is glycogen. Yes, you'll shrink as you ride. You'll also get leaner as you train which gives a greater appearance of muscle definition, maybe giving a greater impression on muscle growth???
How short a climb are you talking about with your daughter? If you say, less than 30 seconds, I can see that strength is playing a role because it would be pretty much a sprint.0 -
Alex99 wrote:Lookyhere wrote:Imposter wrote:Lookyhere wrote:its an old debate though and i guess we have our views based on experience.
To be fair, some have their views based on science. The point is that pushing harder on the pedals does not require stronger legs, it requires better fitness. We already have several times more strength than is required, we just need the cv fitness to be able to deliver a small fraction of that to the pedals.....repeatedly.
i am not saying you are wrong but i just dont get it!
you say cycling doesnt build muscles as it doesnt load them? so why have i got very muscular legs ? and back in the day, lost fat & gained leg girth as i got better at cycling? (i used to measure my legs and still have my old training book)
as i ve gotten older, my muscles have reduced and yet despite maintaining CV fitness, i am slower at everything.... (short and long duration)
common sense would say that if you can apply more force on a pedal (& that means initial strength) and build cv fitness, then you ll be able to push a bigger gear, at the same cadence, for longer?
otherwise my daughter who has a great power weight ratio and CV fitness would beat me up steep climbs but she cant because i can apply more force (as i am stronger in the leg) and push a bigger gear at a similar cadence to her and women would be able to match men on a short climb but they cant either (generally speaking) because they are not as strong.
NB the difference between us is lessening every year booo hooo!
Muscle size isn't strongly (ahem!) correlated with maximal strength. You've also got capillary density (associated with aerobic capacity) and glycogen storage capacity to consider. In fact, a significant amount of your muscle mass is glycogen. Yes, you'll shrink as you ride. You'll also get leaner as you train which gives a greater appearance of muscle definition, maybe giving a greater impression on muscle growth???
How short a climb are you talking about with your daughter? If you say, less than 30 seconds, I can see that strength is playing a role because it would be pretty much a sprint.
BTW, I turned 40 this year and have put on roughly a kilo of muscle on my legs in the last year, I think from including more sprints and surges in my training. My max 5 second power is a bit higher, so I think that implies a bit more strength as this is a maximal type effort. I don't go to the gym, so can't tell you what I would press etc... my tt pace is about the same. My climbing (or should I say my power/weight for 5 minutes) is bit worse.0 -
Lookyhere wrote:common sense would say that if you can apply more force on a pedal (& that means initial strength) and build cv fitness, then you ll be able to push a bigger gear, at the same cadence, for longer?
Correct. But you do understand that whatever extra strength (force) you apply to the pedal is already well within your existing strength capability? What will enable you to maintain or limit that extra effort for a prolonged period is - in simplistic terms - your aerobic fitness.0 -
Lookyhere wrote:Imposter wrote:Lookyhere wrote:its an old debate though and i guess we have our views based on experience.
To be fair, some have their views based on science. The point is that pushing harder on the pedals does not require stronger legs, it requires better fitness. We already have several times more strength than is required, we just need the cv fitness to be able to deliver a small fraction of that to the pedals.....repeatedly.
i am not saying you are wrong but i just dont get it!
you say cycling doesnt build muscles as it doesnt load them? so why have i got very muscular legs ? and back in the day, lost fat & gained leg girth as i got better at cycling? (i used to measure my legs and still have my old training book)
as i ve gotten older, my muscles have reduced and yet despite maintaining CV fitness, i am slower at everything.... (short and long duration)
common sense would say that if you can apply more force on a pedal (& that means initial strength) and build cv fitness, then you ll be able to push a bigger gear, at the same cadence, for longer?
otherwise my daughter who has a great power weight ratio and CV fitness would beat me up steep climbs but she cant because i can apply more force (as i am stronger in the leg) and push a bigger gear at a similar cadence to her and women would be able to match men on a short climb but they cant either (generally speaking) because they are not as strong.
NB the difference between us is lessening every year booo hooo!
FWIW Imposter has his ideas on how things work and therefore those ideas are correct and everyone who disagrees is wrong. Either that or he's a whole lot like me and just likes to argue the point for the sake of debate and something to do. One or the other.0 -
Assuming top female professional cyclists have similar levels of CV fitness as top male professional cyclists, why are just about all male professionals faster than female professionals up hills?Imposter wrote:Lookyhere wrote:common sense would say that if you can apply more force on a pedal (& that means initial strength) and build cv fitness, then you ll be able to push a bigger gear, at the same cadence, for longer?
Correct. But you do understand that whatever extra strength (force) you apply to the pedal is already well within your existing strength capability? What will enable you to maintain or limit that extra effort for a prolonged period is - in simplistic terms - your aerobic fitness.0 -
duplicate0
-
ForumNewbie wrote:Assuming top female professional cyclists have similar levels of CV fitness as top male professional cyclists, why are just about all male professionals faster than female professionals up hills?
For the same reason the men's 100m WR or the men's marathon WR are different times than the equivalent women's WRs. You get that men and women are physiologically different, yes? I'm not trying to be funny, by the way....0 -
Yes, men are generally physically stronger. If leg strength does not matter how come when at the end of a really hilly ride, my legs feel really weak even when I'm not out of breath. I would have thought if I was younger and had more muscular legs, my legs wouldn't feel as weak.Imposter wrote:ForumNewbie wrote:Assuming top female professional cyclists have similar levels of CV fitness as top male professional cyclists, why are just about all male professionals faster than female professionals up hills?
For the same reason the men's 100m WR or the men's marathon WR are different times than the equivalent women's WRs. You get that men and women are physiologically different, yes? I'm not trying to be funny, by the way....
You obviously have a lot of knowledge about this subject - I'm not arguing with you, I'm just asking questions as I'm trying to understand.0 -
Everyone will experience the onset of muscle fatigue at some point during a long ride. The point at which it appears depends on a lot of things, like ride intensity, duration, profile, fuelling, fitness and so on.0
-
I love these threads. People will still be making up their own definitions of 'power' and 'strength' on page 20, and invoking the evidence of a sample of 1 as a scientific basis for making sweeping statements.
As Imposter says, please do search for and read previous threads - there's a lifetime's reading there. Well, it will feel like a lifetime.
Oh, is that the time? I must be going...0 -
I was not making up my own definitions, just asking some questions as were some others on this thread.briantrumpet wrote:I love these threads. People will still be making up their own definitions of 'power' and 'strength' on page 20, and invoking the evidence of a sample of 1 as a scientific basis for making sweeping statements.
As Imposter says, please do search for and read previous threads - there's a lifetime's reading there. Well, it will feel like a lifetime.
Oh, is that the time? I must be going...0 -
Fair point. But it would probably be helpful if there were a sticky at the top of this subforum for definitions of key words - you might sense that there's plenty of history on the strength/power question, and like Leave/Remain, it doesn't necessarily attract the most open-minded discussions, and patience is sometimes in short supply. Maybe this is the thread that will confound my expectations.ForumNewbie wrote:
I was not making up my own definitions, just asking some questions as were some others on this thread.briantrumpet wrote:I love these threads. People will still be making up their own definitions of 'power' and 'strength' on page 20, and invoking the evidence of a sample of 1 as a scientific basis for making sweeping statements.
As Imposter says, please do search for and read previous threads - there's a lifetime's reading there. Well, it will feel like a lifetime.
Oh, is that the time? I must be going...0 -
briantrumpet wrote:I love these threads. People will still be making up their own definitions of 'power' and 'strength' on page 20, and invoking the evidence of a sample of 1 as a scientific basis for making sweeping statements.
As Imposter says, please do search for and read previous threads - there's a lifetime's reading there. Well, it will feel like a lifetime.
Oh, is that the time? I must be going...
well, a quick Google will show that renowned cycling coaches do recommend gym work and plenty of Pro's work out too.
anyhow, i m not saying Imposter is wrong, i just dont understand how leg strength is of no importance to a cyclist who can squat down on one leg and it is ALL CV, doesnt add up.0
