Doge

Thanks for that. Spent a lot of money and time coming to that answer - which is the answer to what the OP was asking:
No - do not do "steep" hills.
Do good long grades - hard (>10mph) - get muscles used to dealing with lactic acid, and pumping your pedals.
Do anaerobic strength building in the gym.

That will maximize your fitness for hills, road races and TTs. That is what the best / fastest road riders are doing.

Scarbo

71 and still a "boy"--my, my.

Quit with the "bragging" meme already. That's been addressed.

The Mt. Diablo climb that was alluded to a bit earlier in the thread is mostly 7%; latter 3rd between 8-10%; final 200 yards, maybe, 18-20% (South entrance; North entrance steeper at the beginning). Nothing prepares you for getting through the steepest grades quite like just doing them. I'm sure that Contador restricts himself to about 7% in his training. No--you'll never find the guy hitting the steeps of el alto de l'Angliru!

There is also another famous ride in the SF Bay area called the Grizzly Peak Century (110 miles/9300' climbing), which I've done several times. You have to be able to be comfortable at over 7%; several opportunities at over 18%.

Now, "sonny," this isn't bragging! It is called life in the SF Bay Area!

Doge

Search "Mike Nosco Ride". They had it yesterday - Nov 3.
This was 2 years ago I took on the scooter: https://vimeo.com/110941541

A pro video - same ride/year:

nycphotography

You summed it up. I would also add that if you do need to climb long steep hills, alternative training can be as good... but only if executed perfectly.

For example, don't train for 1500 ft climbs by doing repeats on a 400ft climb. A 400 ft climb can be done way over threshold, but you have to settle in to your zones on a 1500ft effort, which means its important to know what your zones are and the effect extended standing efforts at low cadence will have on you later in the climb, and also on the rest of your ride.

You can train for a 1500ft 10% climb with a 1500ft 5% climb, so long as you restrict yourself to an equivalent gear. But training for a long steep climb by spinning hard up a long normal climb doesn't really cover the same muscles and efforts, and also leaves room for mental breakdowns where you just back off an recover for a bit... an option you may not have available on the steep climb.

hsuehhwa

+1


Alternative training has be to executed "perfectly". For example, to train for a 1500' elev 10% climb, one has to use big ring on a 5% climb and MUST NOT switch to smaller gears to bail out at any point, even at a price of walking your bike to the top of the hill.


Most experienced recreational riders can recover in the middle of 5-7% climb quite easily (just shift to a smaller gear, reduce the speed to 5-6 mph and wait for HR to drop). 10%+ 1500 ft elevation (Eg: Mt Baldy ski lift: ~9%, 2100 t elevation) would be a different story. You'll need to pace yourself from the very beginning. It's difficult to recover once in the red zone, particularly for heavier riders.

Doge

I'm repeating myself, but I want to do it without % or RPM involved in the post.

You are training your stroke and body movements - that varies by time and grade.

You are using slightly different muscles on different grades. You are training your lactic acid tolerance in those muscles that you use for that grade.

Fast twitch is hard to train well on the bike. And might break something - on you or the bike.

Carbonfiberboy 

Huh. Beats me. Everything has to be how you say it is. And yes, I'm obviously still a boy.

If you watch Contador on those grades and then go back and read my post about grades and cadence, you might see what I'm saying. Or not.

Of course one has to practice on steep grades if one intends to ride them in an event or race. You have to know what your gearing, technique, and pacing should be. That's standard practice on flat TT courses, too.

Having lousy power to weight numbers but a considerable aero advantage, the steeper it gets, the more I suck. The way to improve that is obviously to improve my power to weight. I'm kinda at the end of the line with that. However concentrating on steep climbs didn't work. Climbing more total vertical/year near LT helps.

There is one interesting thing which hasn't yet been brought up: what's the lowest cadence at which each of us can hold a effort at LT or above for several minutes? We have a few stiff climbs around here. So far, I've seen that I can hold a seated cadence of ~50 at LT or above in my lowest gear for about 1000' vertical because that's all we have here. Being able to do that takes a combination of leg strength, technique, and conditioning. You must have much bigger steeps in the Bay area.

The question that was asked was, to paraphrase a bit, on what gradients is it best to train to get better at climbing? I've found that gradients which I can ride at my normal climbing cadence work best for me. Please share your research and anecdotes.

HazeT

I used to do the same until one day I broke one of the crank arms due to so much power... It sucked that I had to finish the last 30 miles of climb pedalling with a single leg. It made my average speed to drop to 21.5mph

kbarch

Maybe some people train because they want to be able to brag about riding up steeper climbs.
Who really cares if one is more fit if one isn't more accomplished as a result? Just something to think about....

Scarbo

Not to be ageist or insensitive here; but since you brought it up--as a matter of, might I say, pride if not outright bragging--and because I think it is, after all, germane to the discussion, the advice that you dispense might be of certain, particular value to somebody at your station in life and not necessarily 100% applicable to somebody who does care to, and is able to, attack those steeper gradients with a bit more relish and--what the heck, why not!--youthful ability. In any case, as I've said before, if you want to ride in the Bay area/Sierra foothills, mountains, you just about cannot avoid severe gradients. The LA basin is different (it is a "basin," after all!), notwithstanding those climbs in the San Gabriels (Mt. Baldy, etc.). But, take heart, you guys in the south are probably faster than us up here in the north, overall. On the flats, that is.

Scarbo

If all you have in your normal riding environment are steep hills how do you propose that we avoid them?

We're starting to nip at our tails here.

Ciao, Doge.

MinnMan

No way that I'm going to get into the heat of this fight, but speaking as a professor of geology (yes, that's actually what I do for a living), technically speaking the Bay Area is also a basin. The steepness of the hills in the Bay Area and around the fringes of the LA basin share essentially the same tectonic origin. The fact that there are more flats in LA than in the Bay Area is chiefly because most of the flats in the latter are under water.

Scarbo

Thank you for that; but I (normally?) do not ride my bicycle under water.

And, it is not a fight. It is a joyous exchange of ideas. That's how I think of it, anyway.

MinnMan

Right, but the abundance of flats in LA is not "because it's a basin"

Scarbo

Hmmm . . . OK. Let's just say, that in the Bay area, we have much fewer opportunities to ride on flat surfaces.

What do you think?

MinnMan

True. And those water bicycle contraptions suck.

Scarbo

Détente has been achieved! In this little sidebar, anyway.

What are you doing in Minnesota if you are a geology professor? California is the place to be! You really ought to belly up to the bar in time for the Big One!

MinnMan

Don't I know it. I studied at Berkeley, post-doc'ed at Caltech, and worked at the USGS in Menlo Park in between, but my faculty position is here in Minnesota. There aren't many steep hills, which, as we have seen in this discussion, is good or bad, depending on your perspective, but fortunately the driftless areas of Wisconsin are nearby, so there's plenty of climbing to do - on paved and unpaved roads.

Scarbo

Go Cal!

So, you are familiar with both northern and southern California and the distinct riding environments!

Anyway, I don't know what else to add here. You initially asked, what is the advantage of selecting the steeper route over the less steep. For me it has always come down to simple joie de vivre. The advantage of pure enjoyment.

Goodnight.

MinnMan

Yup. I've also ridden in Santa Barbara - painted cave, gibraltar road, etc. But never in the Sierras.

Doge

If it is important you move.
Or you are not in as good of shape.
But that is the answer to the question.
Are you saying you live in an area you can't go over 10mph?

Doge

I was born in Oakland. Grew up (<10) in Fremont / Niles. Plenty of flat around there.
I really don't know where all these super steep hills are. I know the area pretty well. Patterson Pass, Tahoe (CA-89, Truckee), Oakdale - all the crazy Velopromo race courses.

Doge

They are very different. SB is steeper.

woodcraft

Not under water, but damp:

MinnMan

They should do that race on Marin Ave. in Berkeley.

(I have no clue as to whether the Strava segment gets the grade accurately. It's ridiculously steep)

https://www.strava.com/segments/518565