# 10 pounds of weight lost adds 1mph to your speed?



## simmi (6 Nov 2012)

Is this true? I totally disregarded this first time I read it but have since read it again so am wondering If there is something in it.
I weigh around 200lb and average between 15 and 16mph.
If I was to reduce my weight to 170 would I then average between 18 and 19mph with no increase in effort?
This can't be right can it?
Sorry about all the questions at the moment, As my wife likes to tell me I am an obsessive, and cycling is my new obsession.


----------



## Cycleops (6 Nov 2012)

Might just be true. If you think about it the weight loss means you'll be pushing along a lesser load so a speed increase does sound logical.


----------



## MacB (6 Nov 2012)

Yep, if you lose weight and maintain power then your power to weight ratio improves...what that translates to in the real world I haven't the foggiest and I'd imagine there's a whole host of variables to consider.


----------



## zizou (6 Nov 2012)

Weight loss aids climbing ability as the power to weight ratio is what is important here but that is much less of an issue on the flat where total power is the key.

So unless your route was very hilly then a gain of 3 or 4 mph is not going to happen just based on weight loss.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (6 Nov 2012)

if theres less of you do you go down hills comensurately slower? as there's less for gravity to drag on


----------



## 400bhp (6 Nov 2012)

No.

Too many factors at play which weight is one of them. Arguably lost weight is a broadly a consequence of training harder, so is it the lost weight that is the driver or the improvement in fitness?

I've lost about 16-18 pounds in the last 12 months. It is one of the things that has made me faster (and what and when is faster by the way?) but my increased fitness is the driver.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (6 Nov 2012)

I weigh 129lb and can comfortably do the speeds you mention, but it is my fitness that permits me to to do this..
But equally if your counting power to weight ratio, you also have to consider the weight of the bike, not just yourself.


----------



## dan_bo (6 Nov 2012)

and don't forget- if you achieve zero mass you should be able to do 186,282 miles per second!


----------



## MrJamie (6 Nov 2012)

IMHO its a nonsense statistic, weight hardly makes any difference on the flat while cycling. I've ridden a 10 mile circular route (ie. no elevation loss/gain or wind adv.) averaging over 17.5mph and weighing 19 stone, on a heavy 700c hardtail. I could probably lose 60 pounds, but I dont think theres any chance id be sustaining 23.5mph on a hardtail, although i might get some gain. Also 6mph between 20 and 26 is much bigger than 10 to 16, because of how wind resistance scales. From personal experience it makes a huge difference on hills though and is worth losing weight for that.


----------



## MattHB (6 Nov 2012)

It would be more accurate to suggest that the amount of power output compared to the weight of the rider could lead to an increase in speed. 

Power to weight ratio is everything.


----------



## 400bhp (6 Nov 2012)

MattHB said:


> It would be more accurate to suggest that the amount of power output compared to the weight of the rider could lead to an increase in speed.
> 
> *Power to weight ratio is everything*.


 
Only when there is a material force (gravity) acting against you.


----------



## Sittingduck (6 Nov 2012)

If you get lighter, you will _likely_ become faster but a 1mph gain for 10lbs is way too optimistic (IMHO). I have increased my overall rolling avg by around 1.5 - 2 mph in the past 12 months, although I climb considerably faster than I used to. I dropped way more than 10lbs before getting results, however.


----------



## Boon 51 (6 Nov 2012)

So where are we in the mathmatics of this thread when a 10st unfit bloke rides against a 14st fit bloke.. who would be the faster..


----------



## MattHB (6 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> Only when there is a material force (gravity) acting against you.



I was really meaning for hill climbing 

This is a really interesting article that explains things. Particularly in respect to hill climbing.

http://wattbike.com/uk/guide/using_the_wattbike/power_to_weight_ratio




400bhp said:


> Only when there is a material force (gravity) acting against you.



I was really meaning for hill climbing


Boon 51 said:


> So where are we in the mathmatics of this thread when a 10st unfit bloke rides against a 14st fit bloke.. who would be the faster..



Again we could look at power to weight. A fit guy can likely put out much more power, and certainly for longer than the unfit guy.


----------



## Tigerbiten (6 Nov 2012)

In rolling terrain, around 1,000' climbing in 20-25 miles, loading around 20-25lb shopping into my trailer slows me down by about 1 mph.


----------



## fenlandpsychocyclist (6 Nov 2012)

Maybe loosing 10 pounds has more effect on body size ... and hence a reduction in wind drag?

If i cycle my "usual" 30 miler on my 8.5kg trek i'll average 17mph.
If i do the same on my 13.8kg coyote avocet i'll average 14mph.

Now i'm in a very flat part of the country, so you can't say the extra 5kgs on the latter has dragged me
down 3mph.
Maybe its the wind-drag from lights, mudguards, dslr case on the handlebars, big old hi-vis coat??


----------



## Sittingduck (6 Nov 2012)

Weight of the bike or luggage is a different thing to weight of a person. Dropping 5kg of dead weight from the bike or a load of shopping is going to make more difference to dropping 5kg body weight, off of the rider, I think...?

Regarding the above, I would think that aerodynamics plays a considerable factor. Although this is going to be _more_ noticable at higher speeds (20mph+), I would think...? Nevertheless it will still play quite a big part in your loss of avg speed.


----------



## Nearly there (6 Nov 2012)

Don't assume the thinnest guy on a bike is the fittest


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> Only when there is a material force (gravity) acting against you.


 
that would be 'all the time' then - as you are always battling either gravity (going up) and/or friction (decelleration) on the flat. Either way, improving your power/weight ratio (either by improving your power output, or reducing your weight, or both) will increase your performance.


----------



## 400bhp (6 Nov 2012)

No, one is gravity, one is friction.


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> No, one is gravity, one is friction.


 
both of which need to be overcome in order to maintain forward motion, no?


----------



## 400bhp (6 Nov 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> both of which need to be overcome in order to maintain forward motion, no?


 
I said:



> Only when there is a *material* force (gravity) acting against you.


 
Friction + wind resistance > gravity on the flat, no?


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Nov 2012)

not sure what you are arguing - my only point is that regardless of whether you are on the flat or on an incline, a bicycle must be constantly accelerated (ie pedalled), otherwise it will come to a stop. In that sense, a given effort (ie power output) will accelerate a lighter object (ie bike + rider) easier than a heavier one.


----------



## 400bhp (6 Nov 2012)

I'm not arguing, I'm talking on an internet forum.

My point was that the overriding force on the hills is gravity, hence weight (bike plus cyclist) is generally the overriding factor. Whereas, on the flat, my understanding is that wind resistance and friction are more of an issue.

That's correct isn't it? It's a long time since I studied physics.


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Nov 2012)

Decelleration is the net outcome in all of those cases. That is the only 'force' (if you want to call it that) which needs to be overcome..


----------



## User6179 (6 Nov 2012)




----------



## ColinJ (6 Nov 2012)

As has been said above - weight mainly affects climbing speed.

If you really want to play with the numbers, it is is quite instructive to spend an hour or two plugging different values into this online cycling calculator!


----------



## MattHB (6 Nov 2012)

ColinJ said:


> As has been said above - weight mainly affects climbing speed.
> [/URL]!



And acceleration on the flat


----------



## potsy (6 Nov 2012)

ColinJ said:


> As has been said above - weight mainly affects climbing speed.


So how come you are so fast..........downhill?


----------



## ColinJ (6 Nov 2012)

MattHB said:


> And acceleration on the flat





potsy said:


> So how come you are so fast..........downhill?


_"Mainly ..." _ 

Okay, yes, heavy objects are harder to accelerate and decelerate than lighter ones, but they don't take much more energy to keep rolling atop a bicycle. They are also harder to lug up hills, but they are better at plunging downhill than lighter ones, _in the presence of an atmosphere_!


----------



## 400bhp (6 Nov 2012)

what did you study at Uni Colin?


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Nov 2012)

ColinJ said:


> As has been said above - weight mainly affects climbing speed.


 
weight affects any situation where the bike needs to be accelerated.


----------



## ColinJ (6 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> what did you study at Uni Colin?


Electronic Engineering.


black'n'yellow said:


> weight affects any situation where the bike needs to be accelerated.


Well, strictly it is Mass, but there is a direct correlation between the two!


----------



## ColinJ (6 Nov 2012)

On a well-maintained bicycle, frictional losses in the transmission and rolling resistance of the tyres are small compared with the effect of wind resistance when riding at a reasonable speed. Frictional losses _are_ increased by increased weight, but that is an increase in something small so we can pretty much ignore it. What really matters on the flat is how weight and wind resistance are related. Wind resistance is proportional to frontal area and weight to volume.

If you imagine a cube whose sides are 1 metre in length, then the area of one face is 1 sq.metre and its volume is 1 cubic metre. Now double the length of the sides. The area of one side is now 4 sq.metres but the volume is increased to 8 cubic metres i.e. volume increases much quicker than area with increasing size. Big cyclists don't suffer increases in wind resistance in proportion to their weight. Bigger cyclists tend to be more powerful than smaller ones, assuming that their size isn't entirely due to fat! For that reason, bigger cyclists tend to have an advantage over smaller cyclists on the flat, especially into headwinds.

In terms of climbing - on a steep hill, speed will be low so wind resistance will be low, and friction will still be low. Nearly all of the cyclist's energy is used in overcoming gravity so weight is very important - it has to be lugged up the hill. Now, a fit cyclist who is twice as heavy as a fit skinny cyclist is unlikely to have twice the power to compensate so skinny cyclists tend to make better climbers.

How about accelerating on the flat? Well, the power-to-weight ratio of a skinny climber tends to be better than that of a bigger rider so their 'jump' could be better, but once they get up to speed they might struggle to maintain it and be reeled back in by bigger, stronger riders.

As for descending ... A big rider with more power than a small rider has a natural advantage anyway, and their gravity-assistance increases much quicker than their wind resistance with increasing size so their 'terminal velocity' is higher. I have often freewheeled past smaller riders who are pedalling like mad downhill!


----------



## philinmerthyr (6 Nov 2012)

I weigh 21st want to get down to around 15st a loss of about 100lb. I currently average around 13 mph in a hilly area.

That means I'll be averaging 23 mph. I'll give sky a ring


----------



## ColinJ (6 Nov 2012)

philinmerthyr said:


> I weigh 21st want to get down to around 15st a loss of about 100lb. I currently average around 13 mph in a hilly area.
> 
> That means I'll be averaging 23 mph. I'll give sky a ring


You certainly will get a lot faster, Phil! (Don't know about the 23 mph though ...)

When I was fit, I could average about 17 mph on hilly routes round here. When I got fat, I was doing barely half that speed. On the flat though, I could still do a reasonable speed.


----------



## simmi (6 Nov 2012)

> In terms of climbing - on a steep hill, speed will be low so wind resistance will be low, and friction will still be low. Nearly all of the cyclist's energy is used in overcoming gravity so weight is very important - it has to be lugged up the hill. Now, a fit cyclist who is twice as heavy as a fit skinny cyclist is unlikely to have twice the power to compensate so skinny cyclists tend to make better climbers.


Makes a lot of sence.
I am getting better but still finding hills really hard.
Weight today 201lb so will find it hard and don't think my gearing is doing me any favours either with 12-23 and 39/52, still find myself reaching for a gear I haven't got.
Still 28th Aug was 227lb so better hill climbing may not be too far ahead.


----------



## ColinJ (6 Nov 2012)

simmi said:


> .
> I am getting better but still finding hills really hard.
> Weight today 201lb so will find it hard and don't think my gearing is doing me any favours either with 12-23 and 39/52, still find myself reaching for a gear I haven't got.
> Still 28th Aug was 227lb so better hill climbing may not be too far ahead.


Well done on the weight loss, but a 39/23 lowest gear really is _not_ doing you any favours on the hills!

(There are some people who subscribe to the _"What doesn't kill me, makes me stronger"_ philosophy but I'm not one of them! I think you will do more hard rides if they don't feel like they are half-killing you and you will naturally start using higher climbing gears as you get fitter and lighter. I'd be tempted to investigate lower gearing.)


----------



## simmi (6 Nov 2012)

> Well done on the weight loss, but a 39/23 lowest gear really is _not_ doing you any favours on the hills!


Out of a matter of interest what lowest gear ratios do people use.
Do you try to remain seated when climbing, have got a friend who says to remain seated as long as possible because standing uses way more energy.


----------



## Sittingduck (6 Nov 2012)

34/27 lowest gear, for me. I sit and stand but not at the same time.


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Nov 2012)

simmi said:


> Out of a matter of interest what lowest gear ratios do people use.
> Do you try to remain seated when climbing, have got a friend who says to remain seated as long as possible because standing uses way more energy.


 
please don't go down the route of thinking that gearing is the key to getting up hills - it isn't. Fitness is.


----------



## 400bhp (6 Nov 2012)




----------



## simmi (6 Nov 2012)

> please don't go down the route of thinking that gearing is the key to getting up hills - it isn't. Fitness is.


Hi black'n'yellow so would you be able to get up most hills with a 23/39 or more importantly should I be able to when I get fitter.


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Nov 2012)

simmi said:


> Hi black'n'yellow so would you be able to get up most hills with a 23/39 or more importantly should I be able to when I get fitter.


 
sorry, that's a bit open ended, as I don't really know what you mean by 'most hills'..?


----------



## User6179 (6 Nov 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> please don't go down the route of thinking that gearing is the key to getting up hills - it isn't. Fitness is.


 
You on a single speed then ?


----------



## ColinJ (6 Nov 2012)

simmi said:


> Out of a matter of interest what lowest gear ratios do people use.
> Do you try to remain seated when climbing, have got a friend who says to remain seated as long as possible because standing uses way more energy.


I was using 30/28 but I got even fatter and less fit so I switched to 26/28!

I stay seated where I can, but on stupidly steep climbs (say 20-25+%) I have to stand up to keep going.


simmi said:


> Hi black'n'yellow so would you be able to get up most hills with a 23/39 or more importantly should I be able to when I get fitter.





ColinJ said:


> There are some people who subscribe to the _"What doesn't kill me, makes me stronger"_ philosophy but I'm not one of them! I think you will do more hard rides if they don't feel like they are half-killing you and you will naturally start using higher climbing gears as you get fitter and lighter. I'd be tempted to investigate lower gearing.





black'n'yellow said:


> please don't go down the route of thinking that gearing is the key to getting up hills - it isn't. Fitness is.


Told you so! 

When I got fit and lost weight, I climbed almost everything for a year on 39/26 or a higher gear. I don't disagree with black'n'yellow that fitter riders climb in higher gears, but do disagree that grovelling up steep climbs in high gears is the best way to get fit. I think it would either make you avoid steep climbs or walk up them!


----------



## Rob3rt (6 Nov 2012)

ColinJ said:


> When I got fit and lost weight, I climbed almost everything for a year on 39/26 or a higher gear. I don't disagree with black'n'yellow that fitter riders climb in higher gears, but do disagree that grovelling up steep climbs in high gears is the best way to get fit.* I think it would either make you avoid steep climbs or walk up them!*


 
That depend's on if you have been taught an appropriate level of shame!


----------



## simmi (6 Nov 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> sorry, that's a bit open ended, as I don't really know what you mean by 'most hills'..?


 
Not sure but don't think there is anything much above 10% near me, would have to head on over to the Peaks to find anything much steeper.

OMG ColinJ i didn't know hills went to 20-25+%

So just to clear this up am I better in a low gear sitting than a higher one standing when climbing?(once my technique is up to scratch)


----------



## 400bhp (6 Nov 2012)

Aghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

No right answer mate.


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Nov 2012)

simmi said:


> So just to clear this up am I better in a low gear sitting than a higher one standing when climbing?(once my technique is up to scratch)


 
the answer is 'both' - some have a preference, but the truth is that both methods are entirely suitable, so do whatever you need to do to get up and over the climb.


----------



## Rob3rt (6 Nov 2012)

simmi said:


> Not sure but don't think there is anything much above 10% near me, would have to head on over to the Peaks to find anything much steeper.
> 
> OMG ColinJ i didn't know hills went to 20-25+%
> 
> So just to clear this up am I better in a low gear sitting than a higher one standing when climbing?(once my technique is up to scratch)


 
Doesn't matter as long as you are gurning with all your might!


----------



## Alun (6 Nov 2012)

Sittingduck said:


> Weight of the bike or luggage is a different thing to weight of a person. Dropping 5kg of dead weight from the bike or a load of shopping is going to make more difference to dropping 5kg body weight, off of the rider, I think...?


I can't see why that would be true, 5kg is still 5 kg.
Shaving 100g off the wheels and tyres would have more effect than 100g off the frame, because it's rotational mass.


----------



## Alun (6 Nov 2012)

ColinJ said:


> _"Mainly ..." _
> 
> Okay, yes, heavy objects are harder to accelerate and decelerate than lighter ones, but they don't take much more energy to keep rolling atop a bicycle. They are also harder to lug up hills, but they are better at plunging downhill than lighter ones, _in the presence of an atmosphere_!


_in the presence of an atmosphere_! Where are you planning the next ride to start from?


----------



## ColinJ (6 Nov 2012)

Alun said:


> _in the presence of an atmosphere_! Where are you planning the next ride to start from?


I was anticipating a pedantic (though accurate) post in reply from someone of a scientific bent! 

As we (should!) all know, all objects would accelerate downwards at the same rate in the absence of an atmosphere. Cue video clip of lunar surface experiment ...


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Nov 2012)

Alun said:


> Shaving 100g off the wheels and tyres would have more effect than 100g off the frame, because it's rotational mass.


 
which means that it will accelerate quicker - and then decellerate quicker, meaning it may need to be accelerated more often to maintain speed in certain circumstances. So not always a good thing. Sorry, this is probably going to complicate things..


----------



## ColinJ (6 Nov 2012)

simmi said:


> OMG ColinJ i didn't know hills went to 20-25+%


Get yourself over to Park Rash near Kettlewell in the Yorkshire Dales - the first section of that was nearer to 30% and I definitely stood for that, and used a 30/26 gear.







Lots of steep climbs round here, which is why I don't use a 39/23 bottom gear on my bikes!


----------



## Alun (7 Nov 2012)

Both Millar and Contador have been using MTB cassettes on their race bikes whilst out recceing, apparently!
They copied that idea from me!


----------



## MacB (7 Nov 2012)

simmi said:


> So just to clear this up am I better in a low gear sitting than a higher one standing when climbing?(once my technique is up to scratch)


 
Mix it up and see what works better for you, I've found it a variable but I did work initially on my out of saddle climbing stamina. I used a 1 mile hill for this but others may not want to go to these lengths. Beyond a certain fitness point I find I can climb seated, standing or using a mix and it's normally decided by my mood and the length of ride I'm on. Short blasts(sub 40 miles) generally involve a lot more standing and long rides a lot more seated though I'd throw in the odd stand just for easement.

Regardless all my bikes have pretty low gearing available as I prefer to ride than walk.


----------



## al78 (7 Nov 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> please don't go down the route of thinking that gearing is the key to getting up hills - it isn't. Fitness is.


 
Having the right gearing does make going up hills an awful lot more pleasant though, and it can make a difference between making the climb and having to get off and walk. In the case where the gearing allows the rider to spin at the same rate as they would on the flat then they will be able to cope with the climb as easily as if they were cycling on the flat, it will just take longer than the equivalent flat journey. Trying to grind up in too high a gear will result in stalling if the rider runs out of steam because the effort required to turn the pedals is too high for them to sustain it for long. A lower gearing will solve this.


----------



## Hip Priest (7 Nov 2012)

al78 said:


> Having the right gearing does make going up hills an awful lot more pleasant though, and it can make a difference between making the climb and having to get off and walk. In the case where the gearing allows the rider to spin at the same rate as they would on the flat then they will be able to cope with the climb as easily as if they were cycling on the flat, it will just take longer than the equivalent flat journey. Trying to grind up in too high a gear will result in stalling if the rider runs out of steam because the effort required to turn the pedals is too high for them to sustain it for long. A lower gearing will solve this.


 
I find this sort of stuff really interesting, as when I hit anything above 15% I tend to roll to a halt in my bottom gear. On the Cyclone I had to dismount at the steepest bit of The Ryals, and ended up chatting to a bloke who was happly spinning up it at the same speed I was walking.

So, lower gears would help me, but as B&W says, so would getting fitter and losing weight!


----------



## byegad (7 Nov 2012)

I've recently lost 22lbs and am certainly not 2+mph faster. I climb hills a little quicker but not enough for this to show in my average speed.


----------



## DaveyM (7 Nov 2012)

Hip Priest said:


> I find this sort of stuff really interesting, as when I hit anything above 15% I tend to roll to a halt in my bottom gear. On the Cyclone I had to dismount at the steepest bit of The Ryals, and ended up chatting to a bloke who was happly spinning up it at the same speed I was walking.
> 
> So, lower gears would help me, but as B&W says, so would getting fitter and losing weight!


 
I would need to have about 300 gears to get over The Ryals at my current level of fitness!


----------



## Nigelnaturist (8 Nov 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> please don't go down the route of thinking that gearing is the key to getting up hills - it isn't. Fitness is.


Depends what your carrying.


----------



## byegad (8 Nov 2012)

I've written this before but feel it's worth repeating.

There are two schools of hill climbing. There's the 'Go flat out and suffer brigade' and the 'Gear down and get there eventually brigade'. One will arrive at the top of the hill out of breath with muscles aching the other will roll over the top and be breathing hard than normal but not that much harder with muscles nicely warm.

Belonging to the latter group I've been on rides where both groups are represented. At the top of a steep hill the first type of rider will stop to get his/her breath back then carry on whereas I will ride to the top and carry on without a pause, because I don't need one!

Even 33% hills are climbed by me without being stupidly out of breath, riding a recumbent trike I can change to my 12" bottom gear and stop/start to the top. I've yet to be passed by a DF rider on this kind of hill, but I've passed a few who have stalled and are looking on the verge of needing A&E assistance! Anything less than around 25% is a none stop climb for me. Yes I'm slow but I enjoy every minute of my rides.


----------



## Sittingduck (8 Nov 2012)

I submit that there are a third group, who like to push it a little bit but who are able to recover quickly and do not have to stop to catch their breath. They reach the top and keep the legs turning. Infact there are probably a fourth, fifth, sixth group too... I think everybody really is different and exhibit behavious belonging to each of these 'schools'


----------



## black'n'yellow (8 Nov 2012)

Nigelnaturist said:


> Depends what your carrying.


 
Let's be reasonable - I don't think anyone here is talking about riding a fully-laden rickshaw with two passengers and luggage up Hardknott Pass...


----------



## ColinJ (8 Nov 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Let's be reasonable - I don't think anyone here is talking about riding a fully-laden rickshaw with two passengers and luggage up Hardknott Pass...


Maybe not, but at one point I was nearly 60 pounds overweight which was like carting a stunted conjoined twin with me, and I do ride up hills of 20+% gradient! 

Use the gears you need to get up the hills you climb at a cadence you find comfortable. Yes, you will get fitter and end up using higher gears, but there isn't any point in busting a gut on your way there!


----------



## psmiffy (8 Nov 2012)

For the ordinary Joe like me - gearing is definetly a big part of hill climbing - Ive ridden up Hardnott (and Isere Galiber Tourmelet et.al) with panniers and camping kit (front panniers are an advantage as they keep the front wheel down and make me more stable out of the saddle) - could not have done it without 20/32 - of course I would like to be fitter and stronger - but thats life


----------



## Rob3rt (8 Nov 2012)

Gearing vs Fitness is a circular argument!

Want to go up hills faster? You need to get fitter! To get fitter you must be able to complete the required efforts! If you can't complete the required efforts, you need to get gearing that allows you to.


----------



## ColinJ (8 Nov 2012)

Rob3rt said:


> Gearing vs Fitness is a circular argument!
> 
> Want to go up hills faster? You need to get fitter! To get fitter you must be able to complete the required efforts! If you can't complete the required efforts, you need to get gearing that allows you to.


I think it is a simple question of who is more likely to do more cycling and therefore gain more cycling fitness - a cyclist who is overgeared and struggling, or one with sensible gears which enable him/her to enjoy his/her rides.


----------



## Rob3rt (8 Nov 2012)

ColinJ said:


> I think it is a simple question of who is more likely to do more cycling and therefore gain more cycling fitness - a cyclist who is overgeared and struggling, or one with sensible gears which enable him/her to enjoy his/her rides.


 
It is not necessarily about doing more cycling or even about enjoying it (aim dependant). If you want to get fitter, you need to be able to push on for a reasonable period of time at a relevant intensity (flat or hills, more miles isn't always the answer), i.e. say 10 minutes at 85% (just an example, lets not get pedantic about training sessions here). If your gears have you in the red and needing to stop after 5 mins, then you have failed to complete the required effort and by caning yourself in the red have likely ruined the chances of any subsequent efforts being completed either so you have pretty much farked up your training session. You should be geared to allow you to complete the effort at the required intensity and be able to repeat this for the prescribed number of efforts (the last effort should be completed the same as the 1st, if not, you went to hard in the prior efforts).


----------



## Nigelnaturist (8 Nov 2012)

DaveyM said:


> I would need to have about 300 gears to get over The Ryals at my current level of fitness!


No just the right ratios.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (8 Nov 2012)

ColinJ said:


> Maybe not, but at one point I was nearly 60 pounds overweight which was like carting a stunted conjoined twin with me, and I do ride up hills of 20+% gradient!
> 
> Use the gears you need to get up the hills you climb at a cadence you find comfortable. Yes, you will get fitter and end up using higher gears, but there isn't any point in busting a gut on your way there!


This is what i did when I first started, I lowered the gearing so I could finish what I set out to do, I just completed a climb today (albeit not very long) in 38/28 as opposed to the last time I did it which must have been 26/28 I was 17's quicker and whilst its no major record being some 9 mph slower than the K.O.M. if I hadn't done it the first time, I would have been unlikely to have attempted it again (especially in a higher gear), but back in early Sept I was averaging about 35-36ft per mile elevation gain over the distance of my rides, this last month or so I have upped it to about 55-60 ft per mile, still no great climbing, but I dont think I can improve that much more round here.


----------

