Avoid hills early season?

[Allez86]

I saw on some page on the web that a rider should not do any big hills until about 1000 miles into the new season.
I rode about 1400 miles last year, rode in a century in September and used a fluid trainer about 3 times per week over winter until the start of April. I ride about 60+ miles per week and have about 215 miles this season so far.
I live in an area that has some pretty good hills and if you want to ride you can't really avoid them very easily. My legs feel tired after the rides, but the next day don't feel sore. My knees feel good when riding and after. Bottom line is that I like to ride the hills, but never heard of this 1000 miles cautionary.

 

[frenchyge]

Your 3/week on the trainer through the winter would definitely count toward your base mileage, in addition to the 215 this month. It sounds like you're able to start adding some hills, but review the recent knee injury threads and start off easy.

 

[Walrus]

I haven't heard of that warning. No idea why you would want to hold back from building good climbing strength, unless you have specific race plans. I wouldn't be doing too many serious climbs back to back. Have some rest days in between.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

I saw on some page on the web that a rider should not do any big hills until about 1000 miles into the new season.
I rode about 1400 miles last year, rode in a century in September and used a fluid trainer about 3 times per week over winter until the start of April. I ride about 60+ miles per week and have about 215 miles this season so far.
I live in an area that has some pretty good hills and if you want to ride you can't really avoid them very easily. My legs feel tired after the rides, but the next day don't feel sore. My knees feel good when riding and after. Bottom line is that I like to ride the hills, but never heard of this 1000 miles cautionary.

assuming there's nothing wrong with you, there's no reasons to not ride the hills. great training and great fun.

besides, what if you were in my situation, where i live on the summit of a very steep climb? keep riding around the base of the hill until you'd clocked up a 1000 miles... "i'll be home in a months time when i've clocked a 1000 miles, can you have some food ready for when i get in, i'll be rather hungry!!!"

ric

 

[Watoni]

Rationale could be to prevent folks from going into the red zone too early in the season. Of course, you should have some gears on your bike that allow you to go over hills without redlining or having a knee-wrecking cadence. When I lived in a very hilly region I tried to do hills at slightly below LT early on. It felt slow, but I could ride much more and not need as much recovery. When you want to build volume, intensity is not necessarily your friend.

That being said, at this point inthe year I have moved to threshold hill work when I can. I have hit some climbs from 6-12km (500-900m vertical), and I think it is very helpful for my training. Being a "marathon" rider I don't need as much anaerobic work as a crit racer, but I need to raise my threshold and make sure I can get over big climbs without blowing up.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Rationale could be to prevent folks from going into the red zone too early in the season. Of course, you should have some gears on your bike that allow you to go over hills without redlining or having a knee-wrecking cadence. When I lived in a very hilly region I tried to do hills at slightly below LT early on. It felt slow, but I could ride much more and not need as much recovery. When you want to build volume, intensity is not necessarily your friend.

i don't believe that there is anything wrong with doing some hard efforts all year round. in fact where i live it would be impossible to get up a majority of the hills without going over LT. At LT on the hill where i live, i don't think that's enough power to produce movement - i'd topple over!! (having just quickly run the figures through analytic cycling it would get me about 6 km/hr! Oh dear! this would be 30 revs/min in my lowest gear!)

ric

 

[Brizza]

I'd like to read their theory behind "holding off" before training on hills.

I'm guessing they want you to work on your "base" first, but as a rider's "base" has become a peice of cycling jargon (not overly well defined) it's probably not a theory I'd support.

 

[frenk]

I avoid big hills during winter and early spring for a simple reason: there is always snow around, when the road is snow-free there's still a lot of water coming down.
This means that you'll get very wet during the downhill, in particular the feets. When it's under say 5°C, it's not always a pleasure to ride home with completely wet feets/legs...

 

[ric_stern/RST]

I avoid big hills during winter and early spring for a simple reason: there is always snow around, when the road is snow-free there's still a lot of water coming down.
This means that you'll get very wet during the downhill, in particular the feets. When it's under say 5°C, it's not always a pleasure to ride home with completely wet feets/legs...

this is definitely true. eurgh! or even cycling down a dry mountain road in the freezing cold, nasty!

ric

 

[dhk]

I'd like to read their theory behind "holding off" before training on hills.

I'm guessing they want you to work on your "base" first, but as a rider's "base" has become a peice of cycling jargon (not overly well defined) it's probably not a theory I'd support.

Many years ago I read a piece by an italian coach who told his riders they needed to put in 100-200 hours of base riding before any high intensity. As I recall, he told them they would "burn through" the emerging capillaries in their legs with hard efforts early in the season, and destroy their hopes for a strong summer of racing.

Suspect it was a good scare story to get kids to take it easy early season, but doubt if many of today's racers would buy it.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Many years ago I read a piece by an italian coach who told his riders they needed to put in 100-200 hours of base riding before any high intensity. As I recall, he told them they would "burn through" the emerging capillaries in their legs with hard efforts early in the season, and destroy their hopes for a strong summer of racing.

Suspect it was a good scare story to get kids to take it easy early season, but doubt if many of today's racers would buy it.

this is actually a complete fabrication (although i understand many coaches promulgate such a story). there is no physiological evidence to support this, and indeed the opposite is actually true, i.e., high intensity work at around VO2max increases capillary density.

ric

 

[Watoni]

i don't believe that there is anything wrong with doing some hard efforts all year round. in fact where i live it would be impossible to get up a majority of the hills without going over LT. At LT on the hill where i live, i don't think that's enough power to produce movement - i'd topple over!! (having just quickly run the figures through analytic cycling it would get me about 6 km/hr! Oh dear! this would be 30 revs/min in my lowest gear!)

ric

I think the key might be "some hard efforts." I would wager that the Santa Cruz mountains and environs are hillier than most if not all places in the UK. So, I could have hit 6-8km climbs that average 10-11% or more, but I would tend to do 5-7km @ 6-8% early on and not treat the climbs as a TT. Does it not seem that too much intensity early on leads to the need for more recovery, hence less volume early in the year?

 

[Brizza]

Does it not seem that too much intensity early on leads to the need for more recovery, hence less volume early in the year?

You might be on the right track for this theory, but arn't recovery rides "base" work?

 

[ric_stern/RST]

I think the key might be "some hard efforts." I would wager that the Santa Cruz mountains and environs are hillier than most if not all places in the UK. So, I could have hit 6-8km climbs that average 10-11% or more, but I would tend to do 5-7km @ 6-8% early on and not treat the climbs as a TT. Does it not seem that too much intensity early on leads to the need for more recovery, hence less volume early in the year?

i don't know what you mean by "hillier" -- if you mean longer and less steep than you're mostly correct. however, irrespective of this i'm not sure of your point: for e.g., i suggested that it is perfectly fine and indeed very necessary to do some intensity work during "base", this can be achieved by doing efforts of around TT power and/or higher on hills.

On the longer hills where you presumably reside you can on some hills ride at TT effort and on others ride at a lower power (i.e., easier). the shallower the grade the easier it is to ride lower power. On the other hand where i reside there are lots of climbs >15% where power will generally have to be greater than TTpower just to get up them.

Depending on how many hills and how long you sustain a high power along with other aspects of training (i.e., total volume, carbohydrate intake, etc) will determine how much recovery you need.

It will possibly depend on what type of cycling you do, but just doing volume may not be of much use for the racing cyclist - you need intensity as well

ric

 

[Doctor Morbius]

I saw on some page on the web that a rider should not do any big hills until about 1000 miles into the new season.
I rode about 1400 miles last year, rode in a century in September and used a fluid trainer about 3 times per week over winter until the start of April. I ride about 60+ miles per week and have about 215 miles this season so far.
I live in an area that has some pretty good hills and if you want to ride you can't really avoid them very easily. My legs feel tired after the rides, but the next day don't feel sore. My knees feel good when riding and after. Bottom line is that I like to ride the hills, but never heard of this 1000 miles cautionary.

Sounds like the kind of tripe spewed out by Bicycling magazine. If a person is unfit they should just go at the hills with less intensity instead of attacking them. That should be the case whether riding hills or flats. If a person is extremely unfit, they should perhaps use a trainer until they are fit enough to ride the hills.

 

[Watoni]

You might be on the right track for this theory, but arn't recovery rides "base" work?

I think of recovery as rides where the intensity is too low to cause any real adaptation. Endurance/base rides are still pretty easy, but volume can make them challenging, especially for an untrained cyclist.

Ric: Maybe I am simply not as familiar with your area, but by more hilly I meant more climbs, longer (and potentially as steep over any relevant distance). What's the longest/steepest climb in the area?

BTW, I agree that some intensity even during base is advisable, though I can't imagine doing Vo2max intervals all winter long. If you have to get over a hill, by all means do it!

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Ric: Maybe I am simply not as familiar with your area, but by more hilly I meant more climbs, longer (and potentially as steep over any relevant distance). What's the longest/steepest climb in the area?

the longest climb around my area is probably ~25-mins. Steepest climbs are probably ~ 30%

BTW, I agree that some intensity even during base is advisable, though I can't imagine doing Vo2max intervals all winter long. If you have to get over a hill, by all means do it!

there's no reason why you can't do intensity all year round. how much you do and how often will be dependent on your goals etc

ric

 

[Mansmind]

there's no reason why you can't do intensity all year round. how much you do and how often will be dependent on your goals etc

ric

What is all the hype about base riding then? Are you saying that as long as you recover appropriately between workouts, more is to be gained from intensity as opposed to duration?

When I first started riding, I just rode.. I didn't look at hr, power, or anything else. I rode as hard as I felt like I could without blowing up. Early in that process I blew up a lot anyway. ****There's nothing but hills around here. The only relatively flat ride I know is only ~4 miles long, and there a several climbs between here and there.

After and during winter, I decided I would more closely duplicate base training, and kept my heart rate lower on long rides in order to do so. For me that means staying below ~250 watts to stay in the endurance zone (except for short efforts). On A LOT of the hills around here, that means climbing at approximately 6mph, which just seems damn slow.

Would I be better off, from a training standpoint to attack them? That is what I used to do, and it seemed to have paid off handsomely then...much more than the results I'm currently seeing.

Thanks,

John

 

[martin_g]

What is all the hype about base riding then? Are you saying that as long as you recover appropriately between workouts, more is to be gained from intensity as opposed to duration?

When I first started riding, I just rode.. I didn't look at hr, power, or anything else. I rode as hard as I felt like I could without blowing up. Early in that process I blew up a lot anyway. ****There's nothing but hills around here. The only relatively flat ride I know is only ~4 miles long, and there a several climbs between here and there.

After and during winter, I decided I would more closely duplicate base training, and kept my heart rate lower on long rides in order to do so. For me that means staying below ~250 watts to stay in the endurance zone (except for short efforts). On A LOT of the hills around here, that means climbing at approximately 6mph, which just seems damn slow.

Would I be better off, from a training standpoint to attack them? That is what I used to do, and it seemed to have paid off handsomely then...much more than the results I'm currently seeing.

Thanks,

John

Train at high intensity just don't do it very often.
high intensity training means more time needed to recover between sets which means less training can be done.
Base training is low level <80%MHR and so can be done every day (as long as recovery is taking place- which it should be)
By keeping the intensity low most of the time you'll be able to do a higher volume of quality training which will benefit you more in the long run than lots of high intensity.
By all means train at high intensity throughout the year- just make sure it's the icing on the cake ontop of your base training and not instead of base training.
If you have to ride the hills a lot- change down unless you've scheduled one of your "infrequent" high intensity sessions.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Train at high intensity just don't do it very often.
high intensity training means more time needed to recover between sets which means less training can be done.

recovery depends on many factors. just because you do some high intensity work, does not mean your recovery will be greatly extended (if at all in some cases).

Base training is low level <80%MHR and so can be done every day (as long as recovery is taking place- which it should be)

and there's no reason why you can't exercise with higher intensity sections on a daily or almost daily basis

By keeping the intensity low most of the time you'll be able to do a higher volume of quality training which will benefit you more in the long run than lots of high intensity.

because intensity is inversely proportional to duration you will likely always do low intensity most of the time, unless you only ride for very short periods of time each time you ride.

By all means train at high intensity throughout the year- just make sure it's the icing on the cake ontop of your base training and not instead of base training.
If you have to ride the hills a lot- change down unless you've scheduled one of your "infrequent" high intensity sessions.

depending on what you mean by base, there's no reason why some intensity can't be included daily.

as i pointed out previously, on many hills here - you *have* to ride at high intensity just to get up them. changing down, and cadence is unimportant in the power that must be produced to ride up the hills.

ric