climbing

What is harder...standing or seated climbing?

 

Too many variables to simply answer. This depends on the type of hill (length and pitch) and on you and your technique.

Some Pros sit, some stand, and a lot switch back and forth depending on race conditions.

You can try this though:

Find a hill that you can do some repeated efforts on. Something fairly long and with a constant pitch. Ride up it sitting down and try to hold a constant speed. Observe what your heart rate does (you need a monitor).

Then, after a long rest (to decrease the effect of fatigue) repeat the climb in a standing position and at the same constant speed. Observe your heart rate.

Simple, but you might find that you learn a lot.

 

Unfortunately, this test will always produce a higher HR when standing, as you'll be engaging more active muscle mass.

I guess, it might depend on what you mean by 'harder'?

Ric

 

I once heard about someone who studied this. Seemed taht for easy to moderate slopes <10% siitting was the best way to go.
For real steep climbs +10% climbing en danseuse seemed to use less power.

numbers are about(I don't remember where I got the info so I couldn' look it up) Things also can vary personally If you like the one way more then the other the psychologic advantage can be bigger than the 2 or 3 beats your heart rate goes up

 

Under given environmental and topgraphical conditions, then it would be *impossible* to use less power standing versus sitting at a given velocity. In fact, it's highly likely, that at a given velocity standing will require *more* power because you are increasing the surface area presented to the wind.

Ric

 

I presume that in steep climbs wind resistance is of low importance due to the low speeds. When standing up you can use your body mass to push the pedals. Sadly I dont rember where I read/heard it.
Still I agree with the fact that in the most conditions sitting is economically better, still if you are recreational, do what you like most better enjoy jourself then cycle 1min faster IMO.

 

OOOH, yeah Ric, now that I think about my exercise phys classes (as an undergrad) I trust that you are right. Standing and going the same speed should produce a higher heart rate. Does this have something to do with the fact that you are in a "weight bearing" position?

 

Air drag will be lower because of the lower velocities on on a steep climb. However, on the same climb at the same velocity and the same environmental conditions, power would not be lower while standing. it would be higher when standing or exactly the same.

You should always try to enjoy yourself when riding the bike (although i know plenty of people who don't when going uphill!).

Ric

 

Yes, and you'll be engaging more active muscle mass. Also, it's likely that at the same velocity on the same grade with the same environmental conditions, standing will result in a greater surface area being presented (even those velocity is typically low when climbing). This will also, likely raise the power required to get up the grade at the same velocity, which will further raise HR.

Ric

 

I sit till I feel like I'm going to throw up. Then I stand up while I throw up (so as not to get it on me). Then I sit back down and stand back up when I feel like I'm going to pass out. Oh, be sure to sit back down as you pass out so you are closer to the ground.

Not sure which is easier, but they are both pretty darn fun!!

(yeah yeah, nonsense I know, but this thread started hurting my weak little mind!!)

 

Also standing needs extra work, sitting rests body. I've seen estimates of an extra 17W for standing en danseuse (eg comparing running to cycling). Thus 17W/300W is about 5% extra work disregarding aero effect you've mentioned.

I would have thought standing cost was a direct function of rider weight (therefore work rate) so maybe it's an average figure for a typical 70kg rider+10kg equipment.

Also there would be increased rolling resistance on front wheel for very forward standing positions, as can be felt.

Air resistance for a 7% slope would be around 5% of total work so standing would be maybe +1%.

 

I realize this thread is rather old, but I thought I'd use it to piggy-back. It seems that when I'm climbing, I actually go *slower* when I stand than when I sit (e.g. I am climbing at 12 mph standing, then I sit and can pick it up to 14 mph).

Does anyone else experience this? Any solutions? Perhaps my standing/climbing form is not up to snuff.

 

Sure, I had the same problem. What happened was I was too cramped while climbing in the drops. I finally got into climbing in the standing position with my hands draped over the shifters (uppermost bars) which gave me far more height and more speed. It even works on very steep hills too.
As for climbing seated, this is hard on the knees. I read a physio book on knee joints and it was suggested that climbing hills while seated is tough on the knees while standing takes masses of pressure off the knee. I only climb and sit on long, shallow stretches these days.
It's funny but I have a "for God's sake let's get this over with" mentality these days soon as I see a long stretch of hill that I know will lead to a descent. I just attack the hill in a standing position in the realisation that the quicker it's surmounted the better. Ascending is like jogging on wheels - since I drive the peddles from a high position with the hands wrapped around the shifter hoods and the knee takes far less strain, driving from the hip. I pump with my arms and move the bars side to side for more rhythm. Meantime, I always reflect on how hard the process is and that the descent will make up for the effort.