Hill climb training - help needed.

[knuckles84]

Hi all.
New here. Be nice.

Basically I have been cycling for about 5 years. But I am one of those people with too many hobbies and never put very many km's in on the bike compared to more serious cyclists.

My problem is I am fine with sprinting flats and descents. I can hold my own when the distance starts getting up there but as soon as a hill climb comes up I practically stop dead. usually travelling only half the speed of even much less experienced riders.

I am not a big guy either. About 74kg at 5'10. I am carrying a little more bulk up top than most cyclists due to swimming/surfing/gym etc but nothing too extreme.

If I can give an example using Strava - I can usually get positions in the top 10 of flat sprint segments in my area but average between 900th and 1700th for hill climbs. (Most segments in my area generally have about 2000 positions).

It is very frustrating to hit a climb and have beginners and much bigger less fit looking people smash past me. ( especially when I just have to overtake them again after the hill is over).

If someone could recommend some training that may assist for hill climbs I would really appreciate it.

At present I hit a local hill that I struggle to reach the top of as fast as I can twice a week. Plus squats, lunges, leg press, leg extensions, leg curls in the gym on legs day.

General riding is maybe 100-200kms a week but can vary alot. Especially when the surf is up.

Obviously everyone has there strenghts and weaknesses. I would just like to work on my weakness as it seems disproportionate to the rest of my ability.

Thanks

 

[daveryanwyoming]

- Sustainable power to weight. Not sprint for a handful of seconds power, but what you can sustain for extended periods whether that's five minutes of VO2 Max power or 20+ minutes of steadier near Threshold pacing. Develop that kind of out alone in the wind power and keep your weight down and you'll climb better. Good and cagey sprinters can often get away with less sustainable power and aerobic fitness by staying out of the wind until the prime or city limit sprint rolls around but the lack of draft leaves you no place to hide on a climb. If you're already strong alone in the wind and can pull all day and put the hurt to folks on the flats then the issue is almost certainly body mass as hills demand power to weight where power to frontal area or just plain raw power dominates on the flats.

- Climbing or any sustained riding is not about how much force you can generate to push on the pedals. It's about aerobic and metabolic fitness and the ability to continuously and rapidly be able to convert fuels and oxygen into repeated sub maximal muscular contractions. You won't improve that in the squat rack or the leg press machine. If you can walk up a flight of stairs you can already generate more than enough force than is necessary to ride with the pro peloton, what's missing is the ability to supply your working muscles with energy for rapid and continuous efforts. The bike is the best place to develop that kind of fitness.

- There is some hill climbing technique in terms of gear selection, pacing the hill, when to stand or not stand, how to rock the bike when standing, mental focus for hills, transitions from flats or descents to climbs, etc. So even with the power to weight sorted out it still pays to get out and climb hills. If you focus on longer climbs where you can sustain the efforts then those are also good places to work on the fitness as well as technique elements. But if your local hills are minute or two here and there then work the sustained fitness building efforts on the steadiest terrain available and work the hill techniques on hills.

There aren't any shortcuts but to get out and ride hills but it starts with sustainable power to weight so work long sustained efforts to increase your sustainable power.

 

[dominikk85]

are you talking short hill sprints (up to a km or so) or longer climbs. on the short climbs you might be able to compensate for endurance with power (for example cancellara is very good a short ramps despite weighing like 185 pounds but sucks at longer climbs) but at longer climbs you cannot really do that.

 

[knuckles84]

Thanks @daveryanwyoming. That was a very in depth answer. I generally get smashed by the wind too. Riding into the wind just feels like one giant hill haha. I think you are right on with the sustained power thing. And I have noticed my heart rate is usually about 20 nom higher than most people I ride with at any given time. It usually plateau's when it nears my max which is usually the point where I slow down. Technique will probably be an issue to some extent to I think. Usually within the first 10 metres of the hill I have already slowed to about half the speed of other riders. I read an article once that said to practice hills I should ride up them in a gear that enables a cadence of 60-90 rpm and an effort level that a conversation can still be maintained. But if I could do that I wouldn't be reading an article on how to climb hills haha. On q half decent hill I am usually pretty close to stall speed in my easiest gear and puffing like a mother*******. I have a good variety of hills where I live. I can usually sprint up 100-200m hills to keep up with others but I'm stuffed after that. And if I keep riding that way I don't last long. Well I better get out there anyway. Guess I just need some patience. Maybe I'm just a slower improver than others. thanks again.

 

[knuckles84]

Bpm*

 

[An old Guy]

Originally Posted by knuckles84 .

Usually within the first 10 metres of the hill I have already slowed to about half the speed of other riders.

If the other guys are riding away from you after 10 meters, it is all about how much force you can put on the pedals. You are not putting out enough force.

I like the walking up stairs analogy. It is a bunch of BS. I can certainly walk up a single flight of stairs. Heck I can walk up a lot of flights of stairs. I was in Hawaii walking up a some legendary road - tough with a 4-wheel drive and the road is paved. 1/4 mile or 1K. Not very far. It was ugly. At some points I had a great deal of problem just taking one step. It was all about force. I finally changed gears - zigzagged up the road. Much easier. It is all about force.

I suspect that if you can keep up with riders on the flats and sprints that you can climb better than you do. I use a 34/30 gear on the steep hills around here. I can do those hills with a 34/19, but it takes a lot more force.

What gearing do you have? Buy a $50 12/30 cassette and find a gear that lets you get up the hills with the group. Once you find the gear you need, buy a more suitable cassette. Try and keep the force down.

---

I ran across a fellow a couple days ago. I was just about done with my ride. Just 4 short climbs. On the first climb I was passing the fellow when he decided to try and keep up. So I just rode to the top next to him. Next climb he hit the climb harder and I just rode up behind him. The third climb he took off early. I passed him near the top. The forth climb he just fell apart. He was in good shape. He just lacked the right gears.

I just loved his toe clips and downtube shifters. Much nicer than my clipless pedals and Di2.

 

[maydog]

AOG you seem to be making contradictory statements - its all about force, but then with the right gearing you don't need a lot of force. The bottom line is power output. When the incline increases, the heavier riders power requirements increase much faster than his/her lighter counterparts.

My experience has been, to get better at hills - ride as many hills as you can find and ride lots. If you can ride with someone about your size who is a better climber, watch them to develop your own strategy.

I weigh much more than the next heaviest guy in my groups. When the hills come, I know that I will need to put much more power to the ground than they will - I usually downshift a gear or two and increase my cadence just before the climb and ride up in higher or normal cadence on longer climbs. On short climbs, I may just stomp on the pedals in a quick effort to power over.

 

[dhk2]

AOG, I like he walking-up-stairs analogy too, since it's something most of us can do easily. It only gets tough when you try to do at a specified rate, and for many flights of stairs. Consider walking up a flight of stairs, say 10 feet, in 10 seconds. Since I specified the time, that's a "rate of climb" of 1 foot/second, which requires "power" to achieve, rather than just force. If you weigh say 183 lbs, that rate of climb requires you to generate 183 ft-lbs/second, or 1/3 of a horsepower, or 249 watts. Still, bet you and I most here can do that 249 watts for one flight of stairs no problem.

But instead of a 10 second effort with 10 feet vertical gain, consider sustaining that rate of climb for 120 flights of stairs, say 20 minutes (1200 seconds) with 1200 feet of elevation gain. Suddenly the challenge becomes a lot harder. Lots of guys here can do it, but I know from measurements in the gym I can't do 249 watts for 20 minutes. My best 20 minute effort is more like 200 watts.

When I try to put out that 249 watts on the gym trainer, say at a cadence 95, I do OK for the first 5 minutes. But then the HR goes up to near my max, breathing gets heavy, and quickly after that the legs start "loading up", and I'm forced to slow down the cadence (and power output). The reason I can't continue isn't my lack of force, but my limited ability to move O2 and fuel into the muscles and clear the waste products; ie, my sustainable aerobic output power just isn't high enough.

I blame my limited power output on my old age, weight, relative lack of dedicated training, and genetics more suited to strength sports. Doesn't matter as I still enjoy my bike riding a lot; I just go slower uphills than some of the other people I ride with.

 

[An old Guy]

Originally Posted by maydog .

The bottom line is power output.

It is all about the force.

You think it is about power output. There is an easy test. Put your bike in its 53/11 and without shifting ride up a modest hill. (Modest hill is 5-6% for 3000' of elevation.) Even I have the power to get up the hill. I bet you lack the force.

 

[daveryanwyoming]

Originally Posted by An old Guy .


It is all about the force.

You think it is about power output. There is an easy test. Put your bike in its 53/11 and without shifting ride up a modest hill. (Modest hill is 5-6% for 3000' of elevation.) Even I have the power to get up the hill. I bet you lack the force.

No it is NOT all about force.

Your boundary case example just points out the reason bikes have gearing and the need to select gearing appropriate for the terrain and conditions. Sure you could likely stand up and place your full body weight on John Howard's land speed record bike with it's double jackshaft gearing and roughly 350 gear inches and the bike might not roll from a standstill. And if that's how you're gearing then yep you've got a problem.

Using your logic above you could just as easily show that setting up a bike with a 20 tooth chainring, perhaps a 39 tooth rear cog, and 20 inch wheels 'proves' that riding hills is 'cadence limited' as you spin out those 10 gear inches up that same sustained 5% climb. Both cases are absurd boundary cases and neither proves or establishes anything any more than stalling a manual transmission car while trying to start from a standstill on a steep grade in fifth gear proves that the car's engine can't produce enough torque for normal driving in appropriate gears. You've simply geared improperly for the conditions and loaded the engine outside its power band.

You claim to ride with a power meter. If so then simply inspect the torque data for the steepest hills you climb in the gearing you actually use while climbing. It's simple to take that torque data and convert it into force per pedal stroke and very easy to see that the force you apply is a small fraction of your body weight which you presumably can move uphill while climbing stairs or on an uphill hike easily enough as long as you don't try to climb those stairs or that hillside too fast. So what happens when you do try to climb that hillside too fast (on the bike or on foot), you run into your sustainable power limits or your ability to convert fuels and oxygen into muscular power. It's not the force as you can easily manage the same or higher force if you slow down and proceed at a slower pace, the issue is energy per unit time which is the definition of power.

Take the body weight stair climb / hiking test as a limit. IOW, assume that a person can repeatedly lift their body weight on one leg at a time repeatedly as long as they do so slowly. Anyone that has climbed a few flights of stairs or gone for an uphill hike can do this or much more. But take that as the limit so say a 150 pound human can repeatedly lift 150 pounds given time to do so.

Then assume that person rides with 170mm cranks and does so at 70 rpm on a moderate climb. At that very conservative limit of 150 pounds repeatable peak force that rider can generate a peak pedaling torque of ~114 newton meters. Using the published pedaling force curves from studies like Coyle's 1991 study a rider's average effective pedaling torque is approximately half of their peak torque per pedaling cycle or in this case ~57 newton meters average torque per cycle.

Fifty seven newton meters of torque at 70 rpm generates ~418 watts or 6.13 watts per kilogram of body weight for that 150 pound rider. That's world class power and right up there with the best professional cyclists. At 90 rpm it works out to ~535 watts or 7.88 w/kg which is off the charts for FTP and very high for even a handful of minutes.

But very few riders outside of the pros can actually sustain 6 w/kg even though based on the very conservative stair case or hill walking test they have plenty of repeatable force at their disposal because hill climbing speed is limited not by force but by sustainable power and that is a metabolic energy delivery and utilization issue, not a force or strength issue.

BTW, that example above used a 150 pound rider but it does not matter as the exact same analysis applies to any weight since the limiting repeatable force was taken as their body weight based on the hill walking or stair climbing criteria. IOW for any rider that can walk slowly up a hill and lift their body weight while doing so their limit on sustainable power based on proven repeatable force generation is ~ 6.1 w/kg at 70 rpm or ~7.9 w/kg at 90 rpm. Realistic repeatable force based limits are no doubt higher as most hikers can wear a substantial pack on their back and still walk uphill for hours on end if they pace appropriately so body weight represents a very conservative lower limit on repeatable force.

If you don't trust the math then simply inspect power files, the data is there and it's not hard to see that force requirements for sustained efforts are always a fraction of the rider's body weight yet we know that healthy individuals can repeatedly lift that body weight while walking so it's not hard to connect the dots.

Bottom line, if you can walk up a flight of stairs and lift your own body weight repeatedly or go for a day of hiking at a slow pace and repeatedly lift your body weight then you have more than enough repeatable force at your disposal to ride at world class power levels. Yet few riders actually do ride at world class power levels demonstrating that the limiter is not force.

-Dave

 

[dhk2]

Originally Posted by An old Guy .


It is all about the force.

You think it is about power output. There is an easy test. Put your bike in its 53/11 and without shifting ride up a modest hill. (Modest hill is 5-6% for 3000' of elevation.) Even I have the power to get up the hill. I bet you lack the force.

To check on your claim, I look at just the force needed on the rear tire to make progress up that 6% gradient. Say a 150 lb rider is carrying another 26 lbs in bike, clothes, shoes, water bottles, etc, for a total weight of 80 kg going up the hill. Dave calculated the peak torque figure of 114 nm at the crank, that's all 150 lbs bodyweight on one pedal of a 170mm crankarm; half of that figure seems reasonable to use as an average value for the torque applied through 360 degrees.

So, with your top-gear "test", that torque at the rear wheel would be divided by 53/11, or a factor of 4.82, for a net of 23.65 nm peak torque at the rear hub, and ~12 nm average torque. To get force at the tire, we need to divide the torque figure by the wheel radius. Using a nominal 0.35 meter radius for the rear wheel yields an average force of 34 newtons, or 3.4 kg-force at the tire, ie, the push up the hill.

But the push force needed to maintain speed up the 6% test hill is at least 6% of 80 kg, or 4.8 kg. That's more than the 3.4 kg-f average force our rider can achieve. He might be able to "track stand" on the hill by putting all his weight on one pedal, or maybe get a short way by pulling up hard on the bars to supply the extra downforce. But bottom line, I agree with you that even a strong rider can't generate enough force to climb a sustained 6% grade in 53/11. In your test, using an extremely big gear, indeed force is a limiting factor.

But as most all cyclists quickly learn, no one rides up hills in a huge top gear. So what does your challenge prove, other than illustrating why bikes have gears? Note that we've used total body weight as the max force the rider can apply to the pedal, since that's as hard as anyone can push without yanking on the handlebars. And most all of us riders can push that hard out of the saddle, eg, we can all generate our bodyweight as peak force, at least for a short time standing out of the saddle at low cadence. Consider that I can generate more peak force on the pedal than a pro rider, since I weigh 200 lbs and they don't. But sadly, that fact certainly doesn't make me faster uphills.

The missing piece is of course climbing speed. I had to totally leave out speed in my calculations to avoid discussing power. Force can be used to calculate how hard you have to push to maintain a minimum speed up a hill in a given gear, but as soon as we start talking about climbing speed, we have to consider power required.....just force isn't enough to describe the effort.

 

[RapDaddyo]

Originally Posted by knuckles84 .

My problem is I am fine with sprinting flats and descents. I can hold my own when the distance starts getting up there but as soon as a hill climb comes up I practically stop dead. usually travelling only half the speed of even much less experienced riders.

At present I hit a local hill that I struggle to reach the top of as fast as I can twice a week. Plus squats, lunges, leg press, leg extensions, leg curls in the gym on legs day.
General riding is maybe 100-200kms a week but can vary alot. Especially when the surf is up.

A few comments about becoming a better climber. Dave hit it squarely when he told you it's about sustainable power to weight. Reading between the lines of your posts, I'm thinking that you don't do much in the way of sustained constant-power efforts. If you ride primarily on group rides, these rides are characterized by short anaerobic efforts on front and then lots of sub-aerobic time in the draft. And, on the flat or on a downgrade, you can back off or stop pedaling completely for a few seconds and not lose much speed. Not so on a climb. If you back off on a climb, your bike quickly slows down, depending on the grade. Riding a climb properly requires a constant level of power for a sustained period. It doesn't sound as though you do that much.

As to gearing, it's about finding a cadence that allows you to output your max sustainable power with the least perceived effort. I hear guys talk all the time about a climbing cadence different from their cadence on the flat or a descent. Frankly, I don't understand it and I suspect most of them have never tested their theory that they have one optimal cadence on the flat and a different optimal cadence when they climb. I can understand different self-selected cadences on and off the saddle, but not because the road tilts up a few degrees. But, you probably do have a preferred cadence for putting out something close to your maximum sustainable power (e.g., FTP) and I recommend that you use that cadence both climbing and on the flat. You can make power with torque or with cadence. Your bike doesn't care whether you make your power with torque or cadence, but you probably do. Personally, I prefer something in the 90RPM vicinity and I hate it when a course and my drivetrain setup force me into the 60s or lower. I can do it when I have to, but I hate it. As to getting off the saddle, that's very tiring and is rarely necessary for purposes of putting out your sustainable power. Do your own test to find out your maximum seated power. I would bet that it is well above your maximum sustainable power. My max power (when I'm fit) is about 1250W, but I can get to about 750W on the saddle. That's more than double my max sustainable power. I'll bet your max seated power is also well above your max sustainable power. I get off the saddle on a long climb every 5mins or so largely for a change of position rather than for power. My lower back can begin to feel a little tense after a long time in a constant seated position. And, when I do get off the saddle I primarily use my body weight to push the crank down and relax my upper body entirely. In fact, I like to climb off the saddle without my fingers wrapped around the bars to resist the temptation to pull up on the bars. I just make a "V" with my thumb and first finger on the brake hoods and pinch lightly, but I don't wrap my fingers around the hoods.

 

[maydog]

Originally Posted by An old Guy .


It is all about the force.

You think it is about power output. There is an easy test. Put your bike in its 53/11 and without shifting ride up a modest hill. (Modest hill is 5-6% for 3000' of elevation.) Even I have the power to get up the hill. I bet you lack the force.

Since when is a 3000' climb a modest hill? The largest challenging hills around here are 300 feet or so.

Sure you could climb in the least efficent manner possible, but as others have eloquently stated - you will go up faster if you pedal far less than you peak isometrice force production.

You are all wind anyway, since you could not perform said test yourself. As you stated several times before, your smallest cog is 16 teeth - why is that now?

A boulder produces plenty of force, but generates no power.

 

[alienator]

daveryanwyoming nailed it. Anyone who thinks they can do a 3000' climb in a 53/11 is either a liar or not a cyclist and doesn't understand what' involved. Such a rider should definitely be in the ProTour because he'd accumulate a massive collection of polka dot jerseys.

 

[alfeng]

Originally Posted by knuckles84 .

It is very frustrating to hit a climb and have beginners and much bigger less fit looking people smash past me. ( especially when I just have to overtake them again after the hill is over).

If someone could recommend some training that may assist for hill climbs I would really appreciate it.

At present I hit a local hill that I struggle to reach the top of as fast as I can twice a week. Plus squats, lunges, leg press, leg extensions, leg curls in the gym on legs day.

General riding is maybe 100-200kms a week but can vary alot. Especially when the surf is up.

Obviously everyone has there strenghts and weaknesses. I would just like to work on my weakness as it seems disproportionate to the rest of my ability.

Gearing definitely makes a difference ...

FWIW. MY experience also suggests that hill climbing on mountain roads ([COLOR= rgb(128, 128, 128)]at altitudes above 6000 feet[/COLOR]) is mostly [COLOR= rgb(0, 0, 255)]an aerobic event[/COLOR] ...

• the wrong gearing can result in a premature and/or unnecessary aerobic deficiency ...
• even if you aren't achieving a truly hypoxic state, if you are gasping for breath then you may benefit from having a lower gear on your bike AND using it

The wrong gearing on "short hills" (<[COLOR= rgb(255, 140, 0)]half mile[/COLOR]) at "sea level" (i.e., any altitude below 3000 feet) can also result in an aerobic deficiency ...

WHAT is the current gearing on your bike?

At what altitude are your rides taking place?

AND, are you sure that your bike is optimally tuned?

 

[alfeng]

Originally Posted by alienator .

daveryanwyoming nailed it.

Anyone who thinks they can do a 3000' climb in a 53/11 is either a liar or not a cyclist and doesn't understand what' involved. Such a rider should definitely be in the ProTour because he'd accumulate a massive collection of polka dot jerseys.

I have to agree with this ...

• OMG. Hopefully, agreeing with alienator is not a Sign-of-the-Apocalypse!?!
  

Heck, 'I' can barely push 53/11 gearing on a flat roadway!

FWIW. As dhk2 suggested, (most) "bikes have gears."

In the absence of multiple gears, I geared this bike ([COLOR= rgb(0, 128, 0)]below[/COLOR]) for riding (i.e., "climbing" & coasting) on mountain roads -- it has modest-by-comparison [COLOR= rgb(0, 0, 128)]32/22[/COLOR] gearing (~39/27 equivalent) ...

 

[Cannondale evo]

I am 5'9" and 135 lbs using this 54/12 fixie on level 6 resistance to train the hill climbing during winter. Off saddle 1 x 20 min, or 1 x 30 min. Does anybody think this would increase my fitness for climbing by Spring time ?

 

[RapDaddyo]

Originally Posted by Cannondale evo .

I am 5'9" and 135 lbs using this 54/12 fixie on level 6 resistance to train the hill climbing during winter. Off saddle 1 x 20 min, or 1 x 30 min. Does anybody think this would increase my fitness for climbing by Spring time ?

There's no problem using a fixie on a trainer so long as you can set the resistance to get your target power at your desired cadence. But, I don't know why you want to spend so much time off the saddle. Other than short rollers, you will do most of your climbing at or near your aerobic power. So, training your aerobic fitness with standard L4 efforts is training your climbing fitness. You can spend a lot more L4 time seated than you can standing.

 

[An old Guy]

Originally Posted by daveryanwyoming .


No it is NOT all about force.

I just demonstrated that climbing is all about the force on the pedals. You agree that if the force needed is too high climbing speed goes down to zero.

Little old overweight ladies get up hills. Little kids get up hills. They do so by recognizing that they lack the force to push the big gears. They all seem to have the power to get up the hills.

The original poster wrote "On a half decent hill I am usually pretty close to stall speed in my easiest gear and puffing like a mother*******." He lacks the proper gears for the hill. He lacks the force to push the gears he has. (Just like my example of using a 53/11 on a hill or your example using John Howard's bike.)

But it seems a lot of other people have the same delusion you have.

---

Despite my power to weight ratio being about the same as it was a couple years ago I can climb in bigger gears because I can apply more force to the pedals.

 

[An old Guy]

Originally Posted by maydog .


Since when is a 3000' climb a modest hill? The largest challenging hills around here are 300 feet or so.

You are all wind anyway, since you could not perform said test yourself. As you stated several times before, your smallest cog is 16 teeth - why is that now?

When I go to areas with mountains, I do 3000' climbs. Deer Creek Canyon Road, Left Hand Canyon Road. Each about 3000' in 16 miles. That makes them modest.

I think my claim was that even with my low power output I could do the 3000' climb. On the other hand no one has the force to do the climb in a 53/11. It seems everyone agrees with me.

---

My smallest cog is an 11. By biggest chainring is a 54. I prefer to ride with 50-34 and 16-30 as it attracts less attention. Besides with my 50/16 on the flat I can hit 30mph and hold 25mph for long enough.