# Energy conservation ... sitting vs standing on hill climbs.



## fenlandpsychocyclist (4 Sep 2012)

I can spin a maximum of 100 rpm up a 1 in 20 gradient whilst *seated* at x mph.
I can spin a maximum of 70 rpm up the same gradient and same speed whilst *standing*.

Which is most efficient?
Which method conserves the most energy when on a long ride?


----------



## PK99 (4 Sep 2012)

Sitting. When standing you are using more muscle groups which need feeding.

A friend did a day at the Manchester velodrome with the sky team - his max power standing was double hi max power seated but the coach told him not to stand other than for very short bursts because it is MUCH less efficient.

On a club run, standing to blast over a bump and claim bragging rights is fine (and good interval training on rolling rides) but on an endurance ride sit and spin!


----------



## User6179 (4 Sep 2012)

fenlandpsychocyclist said:


> I can spin a maximum of 100 rpm up a 1 in 20 gradient whilst *seated* at x mph.
> I can spin a maximum of 70 rpm up the same gradient and same speed whilst *standing*.
> 
> Which is most efficient?
> Which method conserves the most energy when on a long ride?


 
Im maybe wrong but I thought you would use exactly the same amount of energy sitting or standing !?


----------



## Garz (5 Sep 2012)

fenlandpsychocyclist said:


> Which is most efficient?


 
Seated.



fenlandpsychocyclist said:


> Which method conserves the most energy when on a long ride?


 
Seated.


----------



## amaferanga (6 Sep 2012)

Marginally more efficient seated, not much more efficient. When the hills get really steep though and cadence drops there's really nothing in it. But that's taking a single hill in isolation. Over the course of a long ride its probably better to mix things up.


----------



## fossyant (6 Sep 2012)

I'd like to see you do 100 rpm up a 1 in 5 !  It's all personal to the rider, and standing does use more energy as you use more muscles, especially core and arms.

Not always less efficient though ! Standing alows you to put more power through by 'pulling' on the bike. 

This debate could rage on. If you've got a very long ride, with lots of hills, then it's adviseable to sit where possible, but, your body does need a break, and standing will use different muscles. 

TBH this is a 'lab' type question. The roads and hills are real, and rider style and weather conditions can change that, especially gearing. I don't have a road bike that could do 100 rpm up a 1 in 5, more like 40 rpm grind.


----------



## amaferanga (6 Sep 2012)

fossyant said:


> I'd like to see you do 100 rpm up a 1 in 5 !  ....


 
1 in 20 in the OP, not 1 in 5.


----------



## Berties (6 Sep 2012)

i keep in the saddle,standing slows you down,you tend to use calves as well when you stand so more power yes,so a little bit of a rest on the thighs maybe,and gives you a instant push to gain momentum,
its a personal choice that will reflect on ride length and grade etc


----------



## fossyant (6 Sep 2012)

amaferanga said:


> 1 in 20 in the OP, not 1 in 5.


 
Oops. 1 in 20 - flippin eck - it's a bump. Just sit and ride. Standing is a waste of time on such a small gradient !


----------



## GrasB (6 Sep 2012)

fenlandpsychocyclist said:


> I can spin a maximum of 100 rpm up a 1 in 20 gradient whilst *seated* at x mph.
> I can spin a maximum of 70 rpm up the same gradient and same speed whilst *standing*.
> 
> Which is most efficient?


Sitting


> Which method conserves the most energy when on a long ride?


Sitting, however you may well end up more fatigued as you're not spreading the load across all the muscle sets you have available for climbing.



fossyant said:


> I'd like to see you do 100 rpm up a 1 in 5 !


I've seen people do 85rpm up 1 in 4s... however their gearing inches have been in single figures.


----------



## Herr-B (6 Sep 2012)

I haven't done many hills (some around here would say I've done none!), but the slight inclines I've done I'd say seating was the most efficient. If I stand my thighs begin to shout 'no more!'.


----------



## pally83 (6 Sep 2012)

Herr-B said:


> I haven't done many hills (some around here would say I've done none!), but the slight inclines I've done I'd say seating was the most efficient. If I stand my thighs begin to shout 'no more!'.



Shut up legs!! 

I find a mix of sitting and standing works for me. Standing uses more energy but it also uses different muscles. 

I tend to sit over lesser gradients, stand on steeper and do a mix of both (complete with a mix of spinning and grinding) on anything over a few hundred metres in length. 

I have noticed that i've been doing more standing of late, though.


----------



## amaferanga (6 Sep 2012)

More often than not people that claim that climbing out of the saddle is terribly inefficient and/or slow are those that never do it. They maybe try it from time to time and decide it puffs them out so it's no good. But like most things, it requires practice. Do it often and you might find you can climb hills equally quickly either way, which is a nice option to have. And when hills get really steep such that you cadence likely drops <60rpm I believe there's actually nothing in it in efficiency terms and personally I find climbing at low cadence works better for me if I'm out of the saddle. 

Of course for a 1 in 20 you should have plenty low enough gears to spin away happily...


----------



## Sittingduck (6 Sep 2012)

Berties said:


> i keep in the saddle,standing slows you down,


 
Hmm, I find exactly the opposite to be true 
All personal choice, as mentioned... I used to remain seated virtually all the time. Stand up a lot these days and it definitely helps. For me, at least.


----------



## fossyant (6 Sep 2012)

Having now been corrected..... a 5% incline is very much like Long Hill, Woodhead etc. It's a long drag, and you'll be far faster sitting down than standing and grinding. If you get a 'bump' on the climb, then it's sometimes advantageous to get out of the saddle and welly it over the bump, then settle back in. You will also be faster sat down on this type of gradient.


----------



## Andrew_Culture (6 Sep 2012)

For the first 90% of a hill climb I'll shift back in my seat slightly, crouch forward a bit (with loose arms) and push like fark, then if it's a Strava segment I'll probably stand for the final 10% and make a face like a pigmy passing a pumpkin.


----------



## lukesdad (7 Sep 2012)

I stand on the flat.


----------



## Saundie (7 Sep 2012)

Some say that lukesdad has two pairs of kneecaps, and that his bicycle has no saddle.


----------



## GrasB (7 Sep 2012)

fossyant said:


> Having now been corrected..... a 5% incline is very much like Long Hill, Woodhead etc. It's a long drag, and you'll be far faster sitting down than standing and grinding. If you get a 'bump' on the climb, then it's sometimes advantageous to get out of the saddle and welly it over the bump, then settle back in. You will also be faster sat down on this type of gradient.


Depends on the ave power if you're going much above FTP then actually it'll be quicker to alternate between standing in a low position & sitting, even on going down hill


----------



## 400bhp (7 Sep 2012)

amaferanga said:


> More often than not people that claim that climbing out of the saddle is terribly inefficient and/or slow are those that never do it. They maybe try it from time to time and decide it puffs them out so it's no good. But like most things, it requires practice. Do it often and you might find you can climb hills equally quickly either way, which is a nice option to have. And when hills get really steep such that you cadence likely drops <60rpm I believe there's actually nothing in it in efficiency terms and personally I find climbing at low cadence works better for me if I'm out of the saddle.
> 
> Of course for a 1 in 20 you should have plenty low enough gears to spin away happily...


 
+1

And see Fossy's reply - rider dependant.

Contador for example.

Me, another example [don't include me anywhere near the same sentence as Bertie though]


----------



## fossyant (7 Sep 2012)

Andrew_Culture said:


> For the first 90% of a hill climb I'll shift back in my seat slightly, crouch forward a bit (with loose arms) and push like f***, then if it's a Strava segment I'll probably stand for the final 10% and make a face like a pigmy passing a pumpkin.


 
Wrong - you've probably lost some speed in that last 10% on the strava segment.  It's something I do, and having analysed one of my KOM's I can say, as soon as I jump out of the saddle, I drop speed compared to the other 5 below me - best sit down and just die over the top.


----------



## fossyant (7 Sep 2012)

GrasB said:


> Depends on the ave power if you're going much above FTP then actually it'll be quicker to alternate between standing in a low position & sitting, even on going down hill


 
Aye, I'm an in/out of the saddle person.


----------



## Andrew_Culture (7 Sep 2012)

fossyant said:


> Wrong - you've probably lost some speed in that last 10% on the strava segment.  It's something I do, and having analysed one of my KOM's I can say, as soon as I jump out of the saddle, I drop speed compared to the other 5 below me - best sit down and just die over the top.


 
Ooh, I need that 'duly noted' button again  I'm going to give it a go though!


----------



## black'n'yellow (7 Sep 2012)

drop it down two gears before getting out of the saddle - that should give you the approx same speed for a marginally lower cadence......


----------



## fossyant (7 Sep 2012)

Andrew_Culture said:


> Ooh, I need that 'duly noted' button again  I'm going to give it a go though!


 
Have a look at one of the strava comparison sites - can't remember which one, very enlightening some of the data. One KOM I have is about 1 mile long, all slightly down hill, a bump in the middle then a short sharp climb at the end. Through all the segment I'm pulling away from everyone, but on that last climb, where I jumped out the saddle and hammered it, sees me lose a couple of seconds.


----------



## Andrew_Culture (7 Sep 2012)

I'm going on a test ride tomorrow on a bicycle that actually has some gears, so I'll try keeping my bum in the seat. On my single speed when the backs of my thighs catch fire it's incredibly tempting to stand and use the fronts instead!


----------



## GrasB (7 Sep 2012)

fossyant said:


> It's something I do, and having analysed one of my KOM's I can say, as soon as I jump out of the saddle, I drop speed compared to the other 5 below me - best sit down and just die over the top.


Then you're doing it wrong! When I look at my performance when transitioning in & out of the saddle all I see is a cadence change, the power & speed say the same.


----------



## fossyant (7 Sep 2012)

GrasB said:


> Then you're doing it wrong! When I look at my performance when transitioning in & out of the saddle all I see is a cadence change, the power & speed say the same.


 
It's most likely as I was totally spent


----------



## 400bhp (7 Sep 2012)

Most folks aren't doing it "wrong". You have to find your own way when climbing on a bike.


----------



## Berties (7 Sep 2012)

400bhp said:


> Most folks aren't doing it "wrong". You have to find your own way when climbing on a bike.


Many a true word said,and depends on your bike,my flat bar I spend more time out of the saddle on hills where as my carbon road bike stay in the saddle


----------



## amaferanga (7 Sep 2012)

400bhp said:


> Most folks aren't doing it "wrong". You have to find your own way when climbing on a bike.


 
Perhaps. Or as has been said, perhaps they haven't actually practised climbing out of the saddle enough to be able to climb properly out of the saddle?


----------



## david k (9 Sep 2012)

lukesdad said:


> I stand on the flat.


 
Then you ride a BMX Sir


----------



## david k (9 Sep 2012)

BTW i almost always stay seated


----------



## GrasB (9 Sep 2012)

400bhp said:


> Most folks aren't doing it "wrong". You have to find your own way when climbing on a bike.


WRT fossy, if your speed is dropping when you're out of the saddle then you're getting your out of the saddle technique wrong or utilising it when your body is in a condition where it can't stand the extra load which standing up induces on your body. The hard part of standing up on the pedals is actually keeping your power output down to the level it should be! If you're at VO2max & in a condition where you're too fatigued to go anaerobic you shouldn't be standing up (you've also pushed way to hard earlier in the ride).


----------



## 400bhp (9 Sep 2012)

Perhaps he is just tired and his mind/body is telling him to get out of the saddle. It might not be the most efficient way (we'll never know) but mentally it might be more efficient than frinding away in the saddle.

It depends what you want out of cycling. If you are happy doing your own thing then it's not worth worrying about.


----------



## mrcunning (10 Sep 2012)

Nothings better than the feeling of getting out of the saddle and power away..


----------



## Andrew_Culture (11 Sep 2012)

If I get very fatigued up a hill I stand and use my body weight to push the pedals down, or at least I thought I did, am I wrong?


----------



## thefollen (11 Sep 2012)

I tend to alternate between sitting and standing. Find standing gets the momentum going, then once the desired momentum/cadence is achieved the bum goes back down and runs with it. A technique I also employ when accelerating either from stationary (especially if you get caught out in the wrong gear) or moving and wish to 'up it'.


----------



## johnnyh (11 Sep 2012)

I mix it up to vary the muscle usage on a good climb. If it's a long climb I stay sat as much as possible whereas a short climb I stand and give it some beans!


----------



## ClichéGuevara (11 Sep 2012)

How do you walk sat down?


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (12 Sep 2012)

Surprised that nobody has mentioned bike weight as this makes a massive difference when climbing


----------



## Lee_M (12 Sep 2012)

In my case and probably everyone else
On this forum I reckon the bike weight is irrelevant compared with the weight of the rider


----------



## Rob3rt (12 Sep 2012)

Saying this forum is populated by mainly fat buggers?


----------



## black'n'yellow (12 Sep 2012)

V for Vengedetta said:


> Surprised that nobody has mentioned bike weight as this makes a massive difference when climbing


 
In my case, bike weight accounts for less than 10% of my overall 'system' weight (ie, me + bike + kit) - so no, it doesn't make much of a difference. For a typical road bike, the heavier you are, the less difference it will make.


----------



## GrasB (12 Sep 2012)

Rob3rt said:


> Saying this forum is populated by mainly fat buggers?


Oi, who said you have to be fat to be heavy ... I would say on your bike but you'll need something faster even with a head start!


----------



## david k (15 Sep 2012)

im not fat but my bike is


----------



## kedab (17 Sep 2012)

PK99 said:


> sit and spin!


i'm sure we used to use this as an insult when we were kids...or was it swivel?


----------



## GrasB (17 Sep 2012)

V for Vengedetta said:


> Surprised that nobody has mentioned bike weight as this makes a massive difference when climbing


Except it's outside the scope of the OPs question that boils down to - _sit or stand which uses less energy_?


----------



## AndyPeace (18 Sep 2012)

I go for a mix of the two. Standing is less efficient but more powerful, as you are lifting more of your body weight up and down as you pedal, whereras sitting your weight is supported by the bike. However mixing the styles lets you use different muscles. Science will tell you one way is more efficient than the other, in the real world its about recognising what your body needs. It's less effiecient to let yourself get shagged out in one style compared to switching methods before you reach that point.


----------



## Crankarm (20 Sep 2012)

Errr .............there aren't any hills in the Fens.


----------



## GrasB (20 Sep 2012)

But you don't have to go that far to start finding smaller climbs.


----------



## Crankarm (20 Sep 2012)

GrasB said:


> But you don't have to go that far to start finding smaller climbs.


 
How far is far? Wales has some steep climbs which are far far away. The Chilterns are a bit nearer. How about the Peak District, still a bit far. Castle Hill in Cambridge?


----------



## GrasB (21 Sep 2012)

Chapel Hill Haslingfield, 0.5km, ave 8.5%
Back road to Littlebury Green, 1km 6%
Back road around Wimpole hall, 1km ave 4.5% 
Barkway rd/B1039 Royson, ave 4.5% over 1km
Linton-Hadstock-Safron Walden 2.5km ave 2.5%
Road between the B1039 & Royson Rd Barkway, 2.2km at ave 4%
Ickleton to Elmdon, 5.25km at 2.1% ave (including a little dip in the middle)
Road between Hildersham & Balsham, 2.5km at ave 2%


----------

