Best Way to Train for Hills?
07-13-20, 01:17 PM
#26
Version 7.0
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 13,120
Bikes: Too Many
Mentioned: 297 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1338 Post(s)
Liked 2,474 Times
in
1,449 Posts
What I have found for me is that climbing cadence is a bit of a red herring. For beginners, learning to spin is a great idea but once one can hold various cadences, I have not found that higher versus lower makes a lot of difference although I seem to prefer and self select around 77 rpm climbing +/-.
Cadence does make a huge difference riding fixed gear and I can work an entire season perfecting my gearing for an event at the track.
I have done a couple of hard climbs and different cadence proved to be useless. They were Mount Venteux and Mount Lemon. Each climb has a feature that makes it very difficult. Mount Venteux has the 4 miles of average 10% grade in the center section that softens ones legs for the 6 mile 7% moonscape with wind to the top. I was looking for gears and legs I did not have. The only cadence that made any sense was no cadence.
Mount Lemon is a 26 mile more constant grade but has 3 miles above 7000 feet. After 23 miles, the last 3 miles is awful. There is not enough O2 to make power so any cadence is hard and the speed is slow. I tried all the cadence and gearing combinations and nothing worked.
TL;DR. On hills, cadence is interesting but not material and lower weight with more power is the only solution to better climbing.
Cadence does make a huge difference riding fixed gear and I can work an entire season perfecting my gearing for an event at the track.
I have done a couple of hard climbs and different cadence proved to be useless. They were Mount Venteux and Mount Lemon. Each climb has a feature that makes it very difficult. Mount Venteux has the 4 miles of average 10% grade in the center section that softens ones legs for the 6 mile 7% moonscape with wind to the top. I was looking for gears and legs I did not have. The only cadence that made any sense was no cadence.
Mount Lemon is a 26 mile more constant grade but has 3 miles above 7000 feet. After 23 miles, the last 3 miles is awful. There is not enough O2 to make power so any cadence is hard and the speed is slow. I tried all the cadence and gearing combinations and nothing worked.
TL;DR. On hills, cadence is interesting but not material and lower weight with more power is the only solution to better climbing.
Likes For Hermes:
07-13-20, 01:59 PM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Posts: 40,865
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac, Canyon Exceed, Specialized Transition, Ellsworth Roots, Ridley Excalibur
Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2952 Post(s)
Liked 3,106 Times
in
1,417 Posts
What I have found for me is that climbing cadence is a bit of a red herring. For beginners, learning to spin is a great idea but once one can hold various cadences, I have not found that higher versus lower makes a lot of difference although I seem to prefer and self select around 77 rpm climbing +/-.
Cadence does make a huge difference riding fixed gear and I can work an entire season perfecting my gearing for an event at the track.
I have done a couple of hard climbs and different cadence proved to be useless. They were Mount Venteux and Mount Lemon. Each climb has a feature that makes it very difficult. Mount Venteux has the 4 miles of average 10% grade in the center section that softens ones legs for the 6 mile 7% moonscape with wind to the top. I was looking for gears and legs I did not have. The only cadence that made any sense was no cadence.
Mount Lemon is a 26 mile more constant grade but has 3 miles above 7000 feet. After 23 miles, the last 3 miles is awful. There is not enough O2 to make power so any cadence is hard and the speed is slow. I tried all the cadence and gearing combinations and nothing worked.
TL;DR. On hills, cadence is interesting but not material and lower weight with more power is the only solution to better climbing.
Cadence does make a huge difference riding fixed gear and I can work an entire season perfecting my gearing for an event at the track.
I have done a couple of hard climbs and different cadence proved to be useless. They were Mount Venteux and Mount Lemon. Each climb has a feature that makes it very difficult. Mount Venteux has the 4 miles of average 10% grade in the center section that softens ones legs for the 6 mile 7% moonscape with wind to the top. I was looking for gears and legs I did not have. The only cadence that made any sense was no cadence.
Mount Lemon is a 26 mile more constant grade but has 3 miles above 7000 feet. After 23 miles, the last 3 miles is awful. There is not enough O2 to make power so any cadence is hard and the speed is slow. I tried all the cadence and gearing combinations and nothing worked.
TL;DR. On hills, cadence is interesting but not material and lower weight with more power is the only solution to better climbing.
07-13-20, 02:18 PM
#28
I'm good to go!
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 14,949
Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020
Mentioned: 51 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6177 Post(s)
Liked 4,794 Times
in
3,306 Posts
Climbing hills with a high cadences isn't any easier than mashing if you don't already have a high cadence for all your other riding. I struggled for years to get myself into being able to easily maintain the high 80's and mid to high 90's with out a thought.
The thing I credit the most was some advice I read somewhere that said to go out on a ride and keep your HR low... zone 3 I think, maybe zone 2, for the entire ride and maintain 80 rpm or better. You have to run some ridiculously low gear ratios and feel like you are going nowhere fast. But it can be done and after a few of those rides I was able to easily manage an average of 80 rpm plus for everything I did.
Caution though. Being so slow a speed I had to maintain to keep my HR low at 80 rpm you get little cooling from created wind. So I wouldn't do this if your temps are in the upper 80's or higher. I actually think this works best at the start of your cycling season when your muscles haven't gotten conditioned to a lower cadence regimen.
The thing I credit the most was some advice I read somewhere that said to go out on a ride and keep your HR low... zone 3 I think, maybe zone 2, for the entire ride and maintain 80 rpm or better. You have to run some ridiculously low gear ratios and feel like you are going nowhere fast. But it can be done and after a few of those rides I was able to easily manage an average of 80 rpm plus for everything I did.
Caution though. Being so slow a speed I had to maintain to keep my HR low at 80 rpm you get little cooling from created wind. So I wouldn't do this if your temps are in the upper 80's or higher. I actually think this works best at the start of your cycling season when your muscles haven't gotten conditioned to a lower cadence regimen.
07-13-20, 08:59 PM
#29
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,527
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3885 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
What I have found for me is that climbing cadence is a bit of a red herring. For beginners, learning to spin is a great idea but once one can hold various cadences, I have not found that higher versus lower makes a lot of difference although I seem to prefer and self select around 77 rpm climbing +/-.
Cadence does make a huge difference riding fixed gear and I can work an entire season perfecting my gearing for an event at the track.
I have done a couple of hard climbs and different cadence proved to be useless. They were Mount Venteux and Mount Lemon. Each climb has a feature that makes it very difficult. Mount Venteux has the 4 miles of average 10% grade in the center section that softens ones legs for the 6 mile 7% moonscape with wind to the top. I was looking for gears and legs I did not have. The only cadence that made any sense was no cadence.
Mount Lemon is a 26 mile more constant grade but has 3 miles above 7000 feet. After 23 miles, the last 3 miles is awful. There is not enough O2 to make power so any cadence is hard and the speed is slow. I tried all the cadence and gearing combinations and nothing worked.
TL;DR. On hills, cadence is interesting but not material and lower weight with more power is the only solution to better climbing.
Cadence does make a huge difference riding fixed gear and I can work an entire season perfecting my gearing for an event at the track.
I have done a couple of hard climbs and different cadence proved to be useless. They were Mount Venteux and Mount Lemon. Each climb has a feature that makes it very difficult. Mount Venteux has the 4 miles of average 10% grade in the center section that softens ones legs for the 6 mile 7% moonscape with wind to the top. I was looking for gears and legs I did not have. The only cadence that made any sense was no cadence.
Mount Lemon is a 26 mile more constant grade but has 3 miles above 7000 feet. After 23 miles, the last 3 miles is awful. There is not enough O2 to make power so any cadence is hard and the speed is slow. I tried all the cadence and gearing combinations and nothing worked.
TL;DR. On hills, cadence is interesting but not material and lower weight with more power is the only solution to better climbing.
The long one . . Ignore speed and power - just find a comfortable cadence that doesn't overstress legs, lungs, or HR. Then look at power or speed though one is better off not doing that. 7000' is not that high, about the elevation of Santa Fe. Because we have more oxygen than we need at sea level, normal resting arterial oxygen saturation is still about 95% at 7000'. You got tired - those are long climbs and you were overgeared.
The longest climb I do regularly is only ~3600', topping out at ~6400', higher than Ventoux. I don't particularly notice it and I live a sea level. I've been up Rainier, the last time when I was 60, and backpacked at 11,000' with no issues. One just goes a little slower, no big deal, one simply needs to have the gearing for it. That's why I say, "watch your cadence." If you can't hold your normal climbing cadence, you're overgeared. Gradient and altitude are details which don't matter as long as you can hold your cadence. Of course being fueled and hydrated makes a big difference. I always have a cog I hope not to use.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
Likes For rubiksoval:
09-12-20, 02:51 PM
#32
Senior Member
True or not, why should I care about efficiency? Speed I can understand, same for fatigue resistance; but what difference does efficiency make?
09-12-20, 05:08 PM
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,201
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1186 Post(s)
Liked 289 Times
in
177 Posts
An older study but Level ground and uphill cycling efficiency in seated and standing positions didn't find any difference in efficiency standing vs sitting for shorter efforts:
Purpose: This study was designed to examine the effects of cycling position (seated or standing) during level-ground and uphill cycling on gross external efficiency (GE) and economy (EC).
Methods: Eight well-trained cyclists performed in a randomized order five trials of 6-min duration at 75% of peak power output either on a velodrome or during the ascent of a hill in seated or standing position. GE and EC were calculated by using the mechanical power output that was measured by crankset (SRM) and energy consumption by a portable gas analyzer (Cosmed K4b2). In addition, each subject performed three 30-s maximal sprints on a laboratory-based cycle ergometer or in the field either in seated or standing position.
Results: GE and EC were, respectively, 22.4 ± 1.5% (CV = 5.6%) and 4.69 ± 0.33 kJ·L-1 (CV = 5.7%) and were not different between level seated, uphill seated, or uphill standing conditions. Heart rate was significantly (P < 0.05) higher in standing position. In the uphill cycling trials, minute ventilation was higher (P < 0.05) in standing than in seated position. The average 30-s power output was higher (P < 0.01) in standing (803 ± 103 W) than in seated position (635 ± 123 W) or on the stationary ergometer (603 ±81 W).
Conclusion: Gradient or body position appears to have a negligible effect on external efficiency in field-based high-intensity
cycling exercise. Greater short-term power can be produced in standing position, presumably due to a greater force developed per
revolution. However, the technical features of the standing position may be one of the most determining factors affecting the metabolic
responses.
Methods: Eight well-trained cyclists performed in a randomized order five trials of 6-min duration at 75% of peak power output either on a velodrome or during the ascent of a hill in seated or standing position. GE and EC were calculated by using the mechanical power output that was measured by crankset (SRM) and energy consumption by a portable gas analyzer (Cosmed K4b2). In addition, each subject performed three 30-s maximal sprints on a laboratory-based cycle ergometer or in the field either in seated or standing position.
Results: GE and EC were, respectively, 22.4 ± 1.5% (CV = 5.6%) and 4.69 ± 0.33 kJ·L-1 (CV = 5.7%) and were not different between level seated, uphill seated, or uphill standing conditions. Heart rate was significantly (P < 0.05) higher in standing position. In the uphill cycling trials, minute ventilation was higher (P < 0.05) in standing than in seated position. The average 30-s power output was higher (P < 0.01) in standing (803 ± 103 W) than in seated position (635 ± 123 W) or on the stationary ergometer (603 ±81 W).
Conclusion: Gradient or body position appears to have a negligible effect on external efficiency in field-based high-intensity
cycling exercise. Greater short-term power can be produced in standing position, presumably due to a greater force developed per
revolution. However, the technical features of the standing position may be one of the most determining factors affecting the metabolic
responses.
09-12-20, 05:40 PM
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444
Bikes: bikes
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times
in
711 Posts
An older study but Level ground and uphill cycling efficiency in seated and standing positions didn't find any difference in efficiency standing vs sitting for shorter efforts:
Results: GE and EC were, respectively, 22.4 ± 1.5% (CV = 5.6%) and 4.69 ± 0.33 kJ·L-1 (CV = 5.7%) and were not different between level seated, uphill seated, or uphill standing conditions. Heart rate was significantly (P < 0.05) higher in standing position. In the uphill cycling trials, minute ventilation was higher (P < 0.05) in standing than in seated position. The average 30-s power output was higher (P < 0.01) in standing (803 ± 103 W) than in seated position (635 ± 123 W) or on the stationary ergometer (603 ±81 W).
Kudos for finding some random study, but trying to draw that conclusion from the above results is just silliness.
Hr was significantly higher, as expected. Because you're working harder. And this was just for six minutes at a time.
Not to mention that standing, even at lower speeds, is slower at a given output due to a massively increased CdA. So slower and with a higher hr, and that's more efficient? Not my idea of efficient.
And then the 30 sec efforts. 30 seconds?!
There's a reason why most everyone sits for climbs that aren't 15%+ (a proflific doper excluded).
09-12-20, 05:55 PM
#35
Senior Member
09-12-20, 06:08 PM
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,201
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1186 Post(s)
Liked 289 Times
in
177 Posts
Kudos for finding some random study, but trying to draw that conclusion from the above results is just silliness.
Hr was significantly higher, as expected. Because you're working harder. And this was just for six minutes at a time.
Not to mention that standing, even at lower speeds, is slower at a given output due to a massively increased CdA. So slower and with a higher hr, and that's more efficient? Not my idea of efficient.
And then the 30 sec efforts. 30 seconds?!
There's a reason why most everyone sits for climbs that aren't 15%+ (a proflific doper excluded).
Hr was significantly higher, as expected. Because you're working harder. And this was just for six minutes at a time.
Not to mention that standing, even at lower speeds, is slower at a given output due to a massively increased CdA. So slower and with a higher hr, and that's more efficient? Not my idea of efficient.
And then the 30 sec efforts. 30 seconds?!
There's a reason why most everyone sits for climbs that aren't 15%+ (a proflific doper excluded).
09-12-20, 07:33 PM
#37
Senior Member
09-16-20, 10:07 AM
#39
Cheerfully low end
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 1,971
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 644 Post(s)
Liked 1,044 Times
in
667 Posts
The way I train works for me on our relatively modest hills, but it wouldn’t work so well in mountainous terrain with big, long climbs.
Otto
Last edited by ofajen; 09-16-20 at 10:15 AM.
09-16-20, 04:33 PM
#40
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,527
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3885 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
You can't defeat a hill, only survive it. Depends on your objective in the ride. If it's a training ride, and you want to ride it hard, it doesn't matter how you get up it, just don't blow up and fall over but come close. Speed up it, etc., none of that really matters. Different gearing and techniques train different muscles, all good.
OTOH if it's a group ride, you want to preserve your energy and stay sheltered until you get there. If possible, let some other fool exhaust themselves. If it's a good sized hill, sit and spin it, meaning you have to have the gears to do that at 80 rpm or so. If you don't, fix that first.
In all cases, as others have said, climb a lot, which I guess means climb a lot more that you're doing now. Climbing when you're really tired is a matter of finding the strength between your ears. We had a RBA here, a brevet designer, who thought it was a good idea to have really steep hills, like 18% near the end of 300k-600k rides. One just sat and cranked them no matter what the legs said.
Hill repeats are helpful, but near the end of a long ride, it's endurance that gets one up the hill, not only power when you're fresh. Training rides with say 60 miles and 4000' once a week work well. A drill which has worked for me is doing 3 X 10' hill repeats at 50-55 rpm and ~90% of LTHR or FTP, once a week. For these, shift as necessary to maintain the slow cadence, stay in the saddle and keep the upper body still, just pedaling with the legs. That's a good leg-trasher.
OTOH if it's a group ride, you want to preserve your energy and stay sheltered until you get there. If possible, let some other fool exhaust themselves. If it's a good sized hill, sit and spin it, meaning you have to have the gears to do that at 80 rpm or so. If you don't, fix that first.
In all cases, as others have said, climb a lot, which I guess means climb a lot more that you're doing now. Climbing when you're really tired is a matter of finding the strength between your ears. We had a RBA here, a brevet designer, who thought it was a good idea to have really steep hills, like 18% near the end of 300k-600k rides. One just sat and cranked them no matter what the legs said.
Hill repeats are helpful, but near the end of a long ride, it's endurance that gets one up the hill, not only power when you're fresh. Training rides with say 60 miles and 4000' once a week work well. A drill which has worked for me is doing 3 X 10' hill repeats at 50-55 rpm and ~90% of LTHR or FTP, once a week. For these, shift as necessary to maintain the slow cadence, stay in the saddle and keep the upper body still, just pedaling with the legs. That's a good leg-trasher.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
09-18-20, 10:27 AM
#41
Senior Member
I just threw in the towel and put on a wider cassette. I have yet to find a hill where I need it though but I haven't left Brooklyn.
09-19-20, 01:47 PM
#42
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Mississauga/Toronto, Ontario canada
Posts: 8,721
Bikes: I have 3 singlespeed/fixed gear bikes
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4227 Post(s)
Liked 2,488 Times
in
1,286 Posts
09-19-20, 03:11 PM
#43
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,527
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3885 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
I have much more respect for the landscape than that. I have never been defeated by a hill, though I have occasionally been defeated by myself.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
09-19-20, 03:22 PM
#44
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,527
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3885 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
You have a vehicle? Go climb Mt. Greylock, nice paved road all the way, top at the level of many of our trailheads out here.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
09-19-20, 04:51 PM
#46
Senior Member