# Hill intervals: Improve your climbing



## Matthew_T (1 Feb 2013)

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/healthandfitness/536725/hill-intervals-improve-your-climbing.html

Seems like a good technique. I am going to give it a go later on.


----------



## Rob3rt (1 Feb 2013)

What a revelation, riding at higher intensities leads to improvements in fitness..............


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (1 Feb 2013)

Matthew_T said:


> http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/healthandfitness/536725/hill-intervals-improve-your-climbing.html
> 
> Seems like a good technique. I am going to give it a go later on.


If i remember correctly you are quite light, so yes just keep at it. There is no weight issue, it's just all about turning what weight you do have into as much power as possible. Also known as power to weight ratio. 

With regular training Matthew, i am sure you could be quite the climber. 

In fact anyone who puts in the training, and keeps on top of their weight, can be. you are already half way there. 

I wise pro cyclist once said that every training session should have a purpose. Make every pedal stroke count.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (1 Feb 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> What a revelation, riding at higher intensities leads to improvements in fitness..............


About time you started this mate. I knew you were lacking something..........


----------



## Biker Joe (2 Feb 2013)

I've done such interval training in the past though I wouldn't like to do it now in my present physical condition.
I remember when first getting to 90% MHR I thought I was going to die, my heart felt it would jump straight out of my chest.
It's quite tough training but effective.
You definitely need a good warm up before you try it.
Give it a go, it's quite an experience. But I wouldn't try it unless you are reasonably fit.


----------



## GrasB (2 Feb 2013)

> Find a hill of around six-eight per cent gradient....


There is absolutely no need for a hill. The only thing you need is a big enough gear to get resistance for high pedal forces. To your body there's no difference to applying 100kgf at 60rpm to the pedals on the flat, on a 8% or a 30% gradient.


----------



## black'n'yellow (2 Feb 2013)

As above - train for the effort. You don't need hills for that. You _can_ do it on hills, but they are not essential.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (2 Feb 2013)

If we were to get overly critical we could point out that the body position is slightly different when climbing. I agree it is of course ALL resistance but to get better at hill climbing one would be advised to climb hills. Learn how to climb in the saddle and out. The pro's don't prepare for the season with huge gears and flat roads and there is a reason for that. Physical and mental.

Consider going up a 30% gradient and having to stop half way up. this would not be the case on a flat section in a big gear. You could simply coast or change down. The 30% hill represents the real life challenge of the climb. Why simulate unless there are no hills in your area?


----------



## black'n'yellow (2 Feb 2013)

30% gradients aren't that common in the UK 

Regardless of riding position (which can change on the flat, as well as on hills - mine frequently does), riding up hills is the same as riding on the flat, except that you go slower for more effort. As long as your aerobic system can cope with sustained effort, that's all that matters 



Pedrosanchezo said:


> The pro's don't prepare for the season with huge gears and flat roads and there is a reason for that


 
Indeed - they are all paid to go on training camps in Majorca or Tenerife and not all of us are that lucky, which means the only option for a lot of people is to improvise. Which is why you can't really compare how the pros train to how the rest of us train.


----------



## Biker Joe (2 Feb 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> If we were to get overly critical we could point out that the body position is slightly different when climbing. I agree it is of course ALL resistance but to get better at hill climbing one would be advised to climb hills. Learn how to climb in the saddle and out. The pro's don't prepare for the season with huge gears and flat roads and there is a reason for that. Physical and mental.
> 
> Consider going up a 30% gradient and having to stop half way up. this would not be the case on a flat section in a big gear. You could simply coast or change down. The 30% hill represents the real life challenge of the climb. Why simulate unless there are no hills in your area?


 
+1


----------



## Rob3rt (3 Feb 2013)

Biker Joe said:


> I've done such interval training in the past though I wouldn't like to do it now in my present physical condition.
> *I remember when first getting to 90% MHR I thought I was going to die, my heart felt it would jump straight out of my chest.*
> It's quite tough training but effective.
> You definitely need a good warm up before you try it.
> Give it a go, it's quite an experience. But I wouldn't try it unless you are reasonably fit.


 
Don't be so dramatic!


----------



## Biker Joe (3 Feb 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> Don't be so dramatic!


Are you saying I'm not allowed to express how I felt?
For me it was quite dramatic.


----------



## MattHB (3 Feb 2013)

Hill repeats are painful! I have a circuit around our village that has a cat 4 and a cat 5 in it, with lots of shorter 'power over' lumps. It's a sure fire way to discover your max HR!


----------



## cyberknight (3 Feb 2013)

If my planned house sale goes ahead a nice local hill will be less than quarter of a mile from my house, i currently go up it once a day to work but i have already planned a couple of repeats a day as my route will be shorter .....


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (3 Feb 2013)

black'n'yellow said:


> 30% gradients aren't that common in the UK
> 
> Regardless of riding position (which can change on the flat, as well as on hills - mine frequently does), riding up hills is the same as riding on the flat, except that you go slower for more effort. As long as your aerobic system can cope with sustained effort, that's all that matters
> 
> ...


 Okay lets just say if you live near hills, and wish to get better at hill climbing, then training on those hills would be a decent option.


----------



## malcermie (3 Feb 2013)

I have a hill near me that is 1Km long at a constant 10% what category would this equate to?


----------



## Biker Joe (3 Feb 2013)

At a guess Cat 3.


----------



## MattHB (3 Feb 2013)

malcermie said:


> I have a hill near me that is 1Km long at a constant 10% what category would this equate to?



From thecycleway.com



> General guidelines for classification are as follows:
> Hors Category (HC) – the hardest, climbs of 1500m+
> 1st Category – climbs of 1100-1500m
> 2nd Category – climbs of 600-1100m
> ...



So a 1km climb with a grade of 10% climbs 100m putting this at about a 4. There are other factors though that are used, and many websites seem to differ.


----------



## lukesdad (3 Feb 2013)

I thought all hills were interval training. I go up one, I go down one, I go up one ......


----------



## black'n'yellow (3 Feb 2013)

malcermie said:


> I have a hill near me that is 1Km long at a constant 10% what category would this equate to?


 
Where I live, that equates to a bump in road..


----------



## Dan B (3 Feb 2013)

GrasB said:


> There is absolutely no need for a hill. The only thing you need is a big enough gear to get resistance for high pedal forces. To your body there's no difference to applying 100kgf at 60rpm to the pedals on the flat, on a 8% or a 30% gradient.


Don't see how that works: once you're 'on top of' a big gear it requires much less effort to maintain speed than it did to get there, whereas on a steep incline if you slack off you slow down pretty much immediately. If you're doing stop/start intervals in a big gear, that'd be a better simulation, wouldnt it?


----------



## MattHB (3 Feb 2013)

Dan B said:


> Don't see how that works: once you're 'on top of' a big gear it requires much less effort to maintain speed than it did to get there, whereas on a steep incline if you slack off you slow down pretty much immediately. If you're doing stop/start intervals in a big gear, that'd be a better simulation, wouldnt it?


In true accelerations wattage GrasB is right, if you continued to accelerate then the wattage would hold. 

But a hill would be preferable as you suggest, but because you would be more likely to hold a consistent wattage on it because the fluctuations in load would be less as there would be a constant braking force. Eg. Gravity. And if your doing intervals, consistency in output is key.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (3 Feb 2013)

I only think this is relevant if you don't live near any hills. It's an alternative, not a preferable option.


----------



## Ningishzidda (4 Feb 2013)

Well there you go. Put the bike into a higher gear to climb the hill.


----------



## Ningishzidda (4 Feb 2013)

As the proud owner of an ergometer with Watts display, I start the session at intensity level 1 ( approx. 100 W ) and ride for 50 kCals in about 8 minutes. After that has finished, I increase the intensity to level 2 and repeat 50 kCals. I continue until I’m on level 16 ( approx. 480 Watts @ 60 rpm ). 50 kCals goes by in about 2 minutes.
Then I ‘cool down’ by decreasing the intensity levels back down to level 1. The whole session lasts 2 ½ hours and has a simulated distance of about 50 km.


----------



## GrasB (4 Feb 2013)

Dan B said:


> Don't see how that works: once you're 'on top of' a big gear it requires much less effort to maintain speed than it did to get there, whereas on a steep incline if you slack off you slow down pretty much immediately. If you're doing stop/start intervals in a big gear, that'd be a better simulation, wouldnt it?


Okay hands up, who can maintain 30mph for 10min solo on a road bike? Because that's me producing around 470w. However if I stay on the hoods & stand up maintaining that same 10 min power my speed will drop to 24-25mph. Which on a 53/11 gear equates to 65rpm. Find a nice long shallow incline (say 1%) & you can be down at 20mph when standing on the hoods.


----------



## MattHB (4 Feb 2013)

GrasB said:


> Okay hands up, *who can maintain 30mph for 10min solo on a road bike*? Because that's me producing around 470w. However if I stay on the hoods & stand up maintaining that same 10 min power my speed will drop to 24-25mph. Which on a 53/11 gear equates to 65rpm. Find a nice long shallow incline (say 1%) & you can be down at 20mph when standing on the hoods.


I can


----------



## Rob3rt (4 Feb 2013)

I agree with GrasB, you don't need an incline, as you accelerate a gear your power will rise sharply, often overshoot the target power then oscillate a little and then level out (basically like a real life step signal). To maintain the same speed in the same gear on the same incline (flat or uphill) in the same conditions, for the same rider requires the same power.



MattHB said:


> I can


 
For how long? That's a 20 min 10 mile TT!


----------



## endoman (4 Feb 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> I agree with GrasB, you don't need an incline, as you accelerate a gear your power will rise sharply, often overshoot the target power then oscillate a little and then level out (basically like a real life step signal). To maintain the same speed in the same gear on the same incline (flat or uphill) in the same conditions, for the same rider requires the same power.
> 
> 
> 
> For how long? That's a 20 min 10 mile TT!


 
Probably an 18 on a TT bike, although nowhere did it state it was on the flat :-)


----------



## MattHB (4 Feb 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> I agree with GrasB, you don't need an incline, as you accelerate a gear your power will rise sharply, often overshoot the target power then oscillate a little and then level out (basically like a real life step signal). To maintain the same speed in the same gear on the same incline (flat or uphill) in the same conditions, for the same rider requires the same power.
> 
> 
> 
> For how long? That's a 20 min 10 mile TT!


If it was all I was doing then yes, but he didn't say it was flat! My FTP is nearing 300w for 60min. I start racing next year (on hold this year because of the baby)


----------



## Rob3rt (4 Feb 2013)

You know your FTP from a power meter (just curious as it is besides the point)? An FTP of 300W probably won't get you a 20 min 10TT unless a good portion is downhill.



endoman said:


> Probably an 18 on a TT bike, although nowhere did it state it was on the flat :-)


 
30mph is 30mph regardless of bike


----------



## MattHB (4 Feb 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> *You know your FTP from a power meter?* An FTP of 300W probably won't get you a 20 min 10TT.
> 
> 
> 
> 30mph is 30mph regardless of bike


Yes I do.. And I still refer you to the fact that he didn't say it was flat


----------



## black'n'yellow (4 Feb 2013)

MattHB said:


> I can


 




MattHB said:


> I start racing next year (on hold this year because of the baby)


 
Please start racing this year.


----------



## Rob3rt (4 Feb 2013)

MattHB said:


> Yes I do.. And I still refer you to the fact that he didn't say it was flat


 
He didn't say it, but you know he was referring to riding 30mph solo on the flat, since his whole argument was based around the ability to train for hills, on the flat!


----------



## MattHB (4 Feb 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> He didn't say it, but you know he was referring to riding 30mph solo on the flat, since his whole argument was based around the ability to train for hills, on the flat!


You need to take a 'be less serious pill'


----------



## black'n'yellow (4 Feb 2013)

MattHB - you just said you could sustain 30mph on a road bike for 10mins. Either you can or you can't. Which is it? With that kind of FTP, you will solo to victory in every race you enter.


----------



## Rob3rt (4 Feb 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> You know your FTP from a power meter (just curious as it is besides the point)? An FTP of 300W probably won't get you a 20 min 10TT unless a good portion is downhill.
> 
> 
> 
> *30mph is 30mph regardless of bike*


 
I made a mistake here Endoman, you are correct! Don't know what I was thinking, I read sustain 30mph on a road bike and switched off, didnt notice the 10 minute bit and the road bike comment didnt click, so you are right (I think), if you can hold 30mph for 10 min on a road bike, you are possibly looking at sub-20 min 10 mile TT on a TT bike in full attire. Definatelly a 20 min.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (4 Feb 2013)

GrasB said:


> Okay hands up, who can maintain 30mph for 10min solo on a road bike? Because that's me producing around 470w. However if I stay on the hoods & stand up maintaining that same 10 min power my speed will drop to 24-25mph. Which on a 53/11 gear equates to 65rpm. Find a nice long shallow incline (say 1%) & you can be down at 20mph when standing on the hoods.


There is a difference in momentum. I don't understand why people argue that there is no need for hills. I would personally only recommend this to someone if they lived in an area with no hills. What possible benefit could there be to riding on the flat whilst attempting to improve climbing ability, as opossed to training on actual hills?

If you want to get better at TT then ride TT. If you want to better your climbing then, if you have the option, climb some hills.

Only settle for simulation when the real thing is not an option.


----------



## Rob3rt (4 Feb 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> There is a difference in momentum. I don't understand why people argue that there is no need for hills. I would personally only recommend this to someone if they lived in an area with no hills. What possible benefit could there be to riding on the flat whilst attempting to improve climbing ability, as opossed to training on actual hills?
> 
> If you want to get better at TT then ride TT. If you want to better your climbing then, if you have the option, climb some hills.
> 
> Only settle for simulation when the real thing is not an option.


 
The difference in momentum is ultimately a moot point. It just doesn't matter, you are either pushing target power or you are not. Ultimately you ride at a certain % FTP, it doesn't matter how you hit it, so long as you do.

I don't think anyone is saying you shouldn't train for hills on hills, just that you don't neccessarily have to go up hills to get good at it, i.e. there is no need to ride 20 mile to find a hill to ride repeats on, if there is a nice stretch of road or circuit you can ride hard efforts on closer to home.

There are benefits to training on the flat though, you can ride at the intended effort as long as you want/require, if you want to train for a 40 minute climb, you will struggle to find one in the UK!


----------



## Ningishzidda (4 Feb 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> There is a difference in momentum. I don't understand why people argue that there is no need for hills. I would personally only recommend this to someone if they lived in an area with no hills. What possible benefit could there be to riding on the flat whilst attempting to improve climbing ability, as opossed to training on actual hills?
> 
> If you want to get better at TT then ride TT. If you want to better your climbing then, if you have the option, climb some hills.
> 
> Only settle for simulation when the real thing is not an option.


 
+1

Hill climbing is riding along the road while overcoming acceleration due to gravity which is a proportion of g roughtly the Sin of theta for the slope.

When you climb a hill, the bike is ‘nose up’. When the hill gets steep, pedalling style changes.
The article is for the cyclist to train to master the new pedalling style as well as improving the muscles involved when using the new pedalling style.

The ‘give away’ words are “jump out of the saddle”.

IMHO, this cannot be done on the flat.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (4 Feb 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> The difference in momentum is ultimately a moot point. It just doesn't matter, you are either pushing target power or you are not. Ultimately you ride at a certain % FTP, it doesn't matter how you hit it, so long as you do.
> 
> I don't think anyone is saying you shouldn't train for hills on hills, just that you don't neccessarily have to go up hills to get good at it, i.e. there is no need to ride 20 mile to find a hill to ride repeats on, if there is a nice stretch of road or circuit you can ride hard efforts on closer to home.
> 
> There are benefits to training on the flat though, you can ride at the intended effort as long as you want/require, if you want to train for a 40 minute climb, you will struggle to find one in the UK!


 The part where it is not a "moot" point though Robert is when the cyclist fails to mantain that power. The effects of the hill on the cyclist when they are no longer able to perform at the desired level. This is different physically and mentally.


----------



## GrasB (4 Feb 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> There is a difference in momentum. I don't understand why people argue that there is no need for hills.


I train on the fens, it'd the epitome of flat. The very opposite of where I race/TT the Alps. Come race day push out exactly the same power for exactly the same durations I would on the fens. When a group of my Italian friends came to the UK & we rode together guess what, our relative performance levels where nearly the same. (Actually this isn't quite true, my performance increases relative to theirs, as expected due to my higher absolute power given similar we all have W/kg & I'm heavy)

You try to tell me I need hills to climb I say you don't because my training & performances say I don't.


----------



## Rob3rt (4 Feb 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> The part where it is not a "moot" point though Robert is when the cyclist fails to mantain that power. The effects of the hill on the cyclist when they are no longer able to perform at the desired level. This is different physically and mentally.


 
Same on the flat or a hill, when you fail to maintain power, you slow down, just the same, the only difference is the speed differential, on the flat you drop from 25 to 22, on the hill from 12 mph to 9mph. Mentally it is different (a little bit because people talk themselves out of hills), physically, it is not so different.


----------



## Rob3rt (4 Feb 2013)

Ningishzidda said:


> +1
> 
> Hill climbing is riding along the road while overcoming acceleration due to gravity which is a proportion of g roughtly the Sin of theta for the slope.
> 
> ...


 
The fact you are over coming gravity makes no difference! On the flat you are overcoming aerodynamic drag.............. it really makes no difference what force you are over coming, so long as you are putting out the same power.

The point re. pedalling style, you would have to clarify, the "style" is the same, the pedals are going around, you may adjust your position on the bike a bit though! I don't deny this.

I am struggling with this bolded part! Yes it can be done on the flat, not sure how you conclude it cant.


----------



## black'n'yellow (4 Feb 2013)

GrasB said:


> I train on the fens, it'd the epitome of flat. The very opposite of where I race/TT the Alps. Come race day push out exactly the same power for exactly the same durations I would on the fens. When a group of my Italian friends came to the UK & we rode together guess what, our relative performance levels where nearly the same. (Actually this isn't quite true, my performance increases relative to theirs, as expected due to my higher absolute power given similar we all have W/kg & I'm heavy)
> 
> You try to tell me I need hills to climb I say you don't because my training & performances say I don't.


 
^^ got to agree with GrasB here. I live in a very hilly area - I could ride 5-mile, 1000ft climbs every day if I wanted. Ironically, mostly I train on the flat - or at least the flattest routes I can find. Here comes an anecdote...

Last year I significantly improved my hill climbing. I didn't improve it by riding up hills. I improved it by increasing my sustainable power and aerobic threshold. On the flat.


----------



## Ningishzidda (4 Feb 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> The fact you are over coming gravity makes no difference! On the flat you are overcoming aerodynamic drag.............. it really makes no difference what force you are over coming, so long as you are putting out the same power.
> 
> The point re. pedalling style, you would have to clarify, the "style" is the same, the pedals are going around, you may adjust your position on the bike a bit though! I don't deny this.
> 
> I am struggling with this bolded part! Yes it can be done on the flat, not sure how you conclude it cant.


 
Spoze it can be don't on the flat. Buy a bike with extended forks.

What you fail to realise is the 'nose up' attitude of a bike on a hill incline. The rider's whole body will be in a different position with relation to the headset and handlebars. Try assuming the same position on the flat and you will end up supporting your upper body weight with your arms and not using it to stamp on the pedal.
The only place to hill train is up a hill.


----------



## Rob3rt (4 Feb 2013)

Ningishzidda said:


> Spoze it can be don't on the flat. Buy a bike with extended forks.


 
Clarify what you are refering to....... you seemed to be saying one can not jump out of the saddle on the flat. You can.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (4 Feb 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> Same on the flat or a hill, when you fail to maintain power, you slow down, just the same, the only difference is the speed differential, on the flat you drop from 25 to 22, on the hill from 12 mph to 9mph. Mentally it is different (a little bit because people talk themselves out of hills), physically, it is not so different.


 A cyclist can blow up on the flat and continue quite easily by coasting or pedaling lightly. Going up a steep incline this is not possible. That is a distinct difference.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (4 Feb 2013)

GrasB said:


> I train on the fens, it'd the epitome of flat. The very opposite of where I race/TT the Alps. Come race day push out exactly the same power for exactly the same durations I would on the fens. When a group of my Italian friends came to the UK & we rode together guess what, our relative performance levels where nearly the same. (Actually this isn't quite true, my performance increases relative to theirs, as expected due to my higher absolute power given similar we all have W/kg & I'm heavy)
> 
> You try to tell me I need hills to climb I say you don't because my training & performances say I don't.


 I am not telling you that you need to. Are you trying to tell me that rider A who trains on hills day in day out will be no better off than rider B who trains on the flat??


----------



## black'n'yellow (4 Feb 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> Are you trying to tell me that rider A who trains on hills day in day out will be no better off than rider B who trains on the flat??


 
It's quite likely that will be the case. Out of those two riders (assuming similarities in weight), the best climber will be the one with the best sustainable power, regardless of where they train.


----------



## Rob3rt (4 Feb 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> A cyclist can blow up on the flat and continue quite easily by coasting or pedaling lightly. Going up a steep incline this is not possible. That is a distinct difference.


 
Either way the interval is over, once you coast or pedal lightly, you may as well be stopping or riding very slowly up the hill, it makes no difference. If you coast, you may still be travelling, but you are no longer training, just like if you stop on a hill.


----------



## Rob3rt (4 Feb 2013)

black'n'yellow said:


> It's quite likely that will be the case. Out of those two riders (assuming similarities in weight), the best climber will be the one with the best sustainable power, regardless of where they train.


 
The one with the best watt/kg (for the required duration of the particular climb) will be the better performer, if 2 riders have the same sustainable power for the climbs duration, the lightest one will get to the top 1st. In basic terms.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (4 Feb 2013)

black'n'yellow said:


> ^^ got to agree with GrasB here. I live in a very hilly area - I could ride 5-mile, 1000ft climbs every day if I wanted. Ironically, mostly I train on the flat - or at least the flattest routes I can find. Here comes an anecdote...
> 
> Last year I significantly improved my hill climbing. I didn't improve it by riding up hills. I improved it by increasing my sustainable power and aerobic threshold. On the flat.


 Or on the turbo trainer to increase power and aerobic performance. Or by losing weight. All help going up hills. You will not learn how to climb hills though by riding on the flat. You can train to be a stronger cyclist in many different departments in many different ways but to learn ones style and own technique, one would have to learn by doing. Not simulating.


----------



## Ningishzidda (4 Feb 2013)

To simulate a hill while riding along the flat, the cyclist can artificially raise the front end of the bike, or, command gravity to vector from the rear.


----------



## montage (4 Feb 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> I am not telling you that you need to. Are you trying to tell me that rider A who trains on hills day in day out will be no better off than rider B who trains on the flat??


 
Yes, if putting out the same effort - technically.

Though I'll say riding on steep slopes does change the game a bit - different body position and cadence etc - as well as pulling on the bars and stability on the bike.

But theory and reality are different, if you want to get better at eating as many pickles as possible in a minute, practice eating as many pickles as possible in a minute. You learn your limits and "technique" as well as how you handle the situation. If you want to get better at climbing, climb more and get liposuction. If you want to get better at arguing over the internet, go take up ballet.


----------



## black'n'yellow (4 Feb 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> The one with the best watt/kg (for the required duration of the particular climb) will be the better performer, if 2 riders have the same sustainable power for the climbs duration, the lightest one will get to the top 1st. In basic terms.


 
yep - that's putting it better than I did..


----------



## montage (4 Feb 2013)

Ningishzidda said:


> To simulate a hill while riding along the flat, the cyclist can artificially raise the front end of the bike, or, command gravity to vector from the rear.


 
If you do this and have those fancy carbon aero winged road bars, would you take off?


----------



## Rob3rt (4 Feb 2013)

I have no opinion on which is better, flat or hill training, I like the hills, it is more interesting to ride in the hills, but I don't necessarily think it is better training. For all bu the steepest of hills, they are probably approx equivalent provided you push the same power.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (4 Feb 2013)

montage said:


> Yes, if putting out the same effort - technically.
> 
> Though I'll say riding on steep slopes does change the game a bit - different body position and cadence etc - as well as pulling on the bars and stability on the bike.
> 
> But theory and reality are different, if you want to get better at eating as many pickles as possible in a minute, practice eating as many pickles as possible in a minute. You learn your limits and "technique" as well as how you handle the situation. If you want to get better at climbing, climb more and get liposuction. If you want to get better at arguing over the internet, go take up ballet.


 I should have explained it like this...........


----------



## black'n'yellow (4 Feb 2013)

Ningishzidda said:


> To simulate a hill while riding along the flat, the cyclist can artificially raise the front end of the bike, or, command gravity to vector from the rear.


 
or to simulate riding up a +45deg gradient, just pull a wheelie.


----------



## Ningishzidda (4 Feb 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> Or on the turbo trainer to increase power and aerobic performance. Or by losing weight. All help going up hills. You will not learn how to climb hills though by riding on the flat. You can train to be a stronger cyclist in many different departments in many different ways but to learn ones style and own technique, one would have to learn by doing. Not simulating.


 

The turbo trainer technique is a oddity. Simply put the front wheel up on a box and use a step ladder to get on and off the bike


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (4 Feb 2013)

Ningishzidda said:


> The turbo trainer technique is a oddity. Simply put the front wheel up on a box and use a step ladder to get on and off the bike


 Though i hear it changes the angle of the bike in relation to your body, hence working your muscles slightly differently. In other words simulating the angle of a climb.


----------



## black'n'yellow (4 Feb 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> You will not learn how to climb hills though by riding on the flat.


 
Why not? We've already established that you don't need to ride hills to get better at riding hills.


----------



## Rob3rt (4 Feb 2013)

To be clear, I am not arguining that there is no place for riding hills, of course there it. I am just stating that it is not essential and you can train very effectivelly without. In fact before being pulled sideways, I was commenting mainly in relation to the following:



Dan B said:


> Don't see how that works: once you're 'on top of' a big gear it requires much less effort to maintain speed than it did to get there, whereas on a steep incline if you slack off you slow down pretty much immediately. If you're doing stop/start intervals in a big gear, that'd be a better simulation, wouldnt it?


 


MattHB said:


> In true accelerations wattage GrasB is right, if you continued to accelerate then the wattage would hold.
> 
> But a hill would be preferable as you suggest, but because you would be more likely to hold a consistent wattage on it because the fluctuations in load would be less as there would be a constant braking force. Eg. Gravity. And if your doing intervals, consistency in output is key.


 
Clarifying that following the initial acceleration (as there is at the start of any interval) and a typical overshoot of power that comes with the step input, once oscillations have cleared that a constant power output would result, if this power is a relevant degree (as set via your gearing) then you can train as intensely as on a hill, but you will be going much faster. The point I was trying to make is that you are working on the power needed to maintain that speed rather than accelerate up to it, therefore constant acceleration is not required. Going up hill, gravity dominates, on the flat aerodynamic drag dominates, it does not matter, XX Watts is XX Watts regardless of the force you are overcoming in the process of generating it.


----------



## deanE (4 Feb 2013)

black'n'yellow said:


> Regardless of riding position (which can change on the flat, as well as on hills - mine frequently does),


Marla Steb suggests that you use 20% more energy standing up. (http://www.marlastreb.com/BMCenturyTrainingProgram.pdf) What riding position would you suggest adopting when tackling hills in the saddle?


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (4 Feb 2013)

black'n'yellow said:


> Why not? We've already established that you don't need to ride hills to get better at riding hills.


 Established? Shared an opinion.

We can all approach training in our own way but i for one wouldn't be training for climbing related events by riding in a different manner. As Montage says, if you are training to eat 100 pickles then best trying to eat a 100 pickles. Or something to that effect.  No point in trying to eat something similar in size that tastes and smells different because, come pickle eating time, you might find that the smell of pickles is different to how imagined. God, you might even not like the taste!!

Now we were talking about pickles right?


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (4 Feb 2013)

deanE said:


> Marla Steb suggests that you use 20% more energy standing up. (http://www.marlastreb.com/BMCenturyTrainingProgram.pdf) What riding position would you suggest adopting when tackling hills in the saddle?


 In the saddle works for me. Allows me to regulate the power and settle in better. Only stand up if i need to alter muscle use or loosen things.


----------



## black'n'yellow (4 Feb 2013)

deanE said:


> Marla Steb suggests that you use 20% more energy standing up. (http://www.marlastreb.com/BMCenturyTrainingProgram.pdf) What riding position would you suggest adopting when tackling hills in the saddle?


 
There is no single riding position. It all depends on the climb and whatever you feel like doing at the time. In a race situation, a lot will also depend on what others may be doing.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (4 Feb 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> To be clear, I am not arguining that there is no place for riding hills, of course there it. I am just stating that it is not essential and you can train very effectivelly without. In fact before being pulled sideways, I was commenting mainly in relation to the following:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Might you sweat more at 8mph up a 20% gradient than 25 mph on the flat with wind blowing in your face? Or even overheat more causing heart rate increase and general discomfort.


----------



## Rob3rt (4 Feb 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> Might you sweat more at 8mph up a 20% gradient than 25 mph on the flat with wind blowing in your face? Or even overheat more causing heart rate increase and general discomfort.


 
You might, which is exactly why HR is not a fool proof measurement of intensity. Your argument here, is basically one of the main arguments for using a power meter!


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (4 Feb 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> You might, which is exactly why HR is not a fool proof measurement of intensity. Your argument here, is basically one of the main arguments for using a power meter!


 I meant that that was in fact a difference and that maybe in itself is worth training on the hills. I shall agree to disagree on this point though pal.
There is no one way to do anything. Just lots of ways to do lots of things.


----------



## GrasB (5 Feb 2013)

deanE said:


> Marla Steb suggests that you use 20% more energy standing up. (http://www.marlastreb.com/BMCenturyTrainingProgram.pdf) What riding position would you suggest adopting when tackling hills in the saddle?


This makes the assumption that consuming energy is your problem when you're standing up. Normally it's short term oxygen supply that's the problem. Standing up actually generally means more of your muscle mass being used is producing power aerobically, in short term power production this is actually a GOOD thing as long as you know you can drop to active recovery power latter on the ride.


----------



## Andrew_P (5 Feb 2013)

Personally speaking I think you guys who race or are training to race have forgotten what it is like to be a mere mortal. Hills enable me to push myself much harder than I am able to push myself on the flat, I cannot take a breather like I can on the flat when it gets slightly out of my comfort zone.

For me hills are defintely harder excercise, note I didn't use the word training I am not cycling to train for racing or any particular event but I don't want to take the walk of shame on hills nor reach the top of the hill with my lungs bursting out of my chest.


----------



## just jim (5 Feb 2013)

Hope I'm not behind any of you on a hill after all those pickled eggs.

I say pickled eggs, because it makes no difference really. I can train on gherkins. Same difference.


----------



## GrasB (5 Feb 2013)

LOCO said:


> Personally speaking I think you guys who race or are training to race have forgotten what it is like to be a mere mortal. Hills enable me to push myself much harder than I am able to push myself on the flat, I cannot take a breather like I can on the flat when it gets slightly out of my comfort zone.
> 
> For me hills are defintely harder excercise, note I didn't use the word training I am not cycling to train for racing or any particular event but I don't want to take the walk of shame on hills nor reach the top of the hill with my lungs bursting out of my chest.


I'd paraphrase this down to - "Most people don't have the motivation to train properly."


----------



## 400bhp (5 Feb 2013)

GrasB said:


> I'd paraphrase this down to - "Most people don't have the motivation to train properly."


----------



## GrasB (5 Feb 2013)

400bhp said:


>


The fact of the matter is LOCO is training by pushing him self hard(er) up the hills, but he doesn't want to admit to training. If you prefer I can change the paraphrase to - "_I train on the hills because I want to fool myself into thinking that I'm not doing training when I cycle._"


----------



## Dan B (5 Feb 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> The point I was trying to make is that you are working on the power needed to maintain that speed rather than accelerate up to it, therefore constant acceleration is not required. Going up hill, gravity dominates, on the flat aerodynamic drag dominates


That makes sense. Horses for courses though, I can believe that in some places it's easier to find a hill than to find a road on which it's safe and comfortable (due to traffic, junctions, etc) to ride at the speeds necessary to produce the same power on the flat.


----------



## Ningishzidda (5 Feb 2013)

'Hill training' is training to climb hills.
Training on the flat stood out of the saddle is 'sprint training'.

Don't get the two confused.


----------



## 400bhp (5 Feb 2013)

GrasB said:


> The fact of the matter is LOCO is training by pushing him self hard(er) up the hills, but he doesn't want to admit to training. If you prefer I can change the paraphrase to - "_I train on the hills because I want to fool myself into thinking that I'm not doing training when I cycle._"


 
He never said he wasn't or was training

Your post


> _"Most people don't have the motivation to train properly."_


 is extremely one dimensioned. Properly for what? Not everyone wants to train and / or race. That does not mean either they don't have the motivation, or that they are not training "properly"

Only when you know what someone wants achieve (if anything) can you deduce whether someone is training properly.

Which is exactly why LOCO wrote what he did, although more succinctly put would be some of you more serious "racers" are missing the bigger picture.

There are other verbs to describe cycling, even when it becomes tough. I actually enjoy pushing hard up hills. Am I training, enjoying,learning. Perhaps all three.


----------



## Andrew_P (5 Feb 2013)

GrasB said:


> I'd paraphrase this down to - "Most people don't have the motivation to train properly."


and this is where hill repeats _*might *_be more productive for someone like the op, and most of us that normlly cycle for pleasure. I couldn't stand doing intervals and pushing it on my commute, I don't need to commute I have the cars, petrol not a real issue its even much quicker I commute because I enjoy it. I ride sometimes at the weekend because I enjoy it.

Not that hill repeats really appeal to me but I can understand why someone would consider them better for the reason you state in your paraphrase only replace_ have the motivation_ with *want.. *


----------



## lukesdad (5 Feb 2013)

GrasB said:


> I train on the fens, it'd the epitome of flat. The very opposite of where I race/TT the Alps. Come race day push out exactly the same power for exactly the same durations I would on the fens. When a group of my Italian friends came to the UK & we rode together guess what, our relative performance levels where nearly the same. (Actually this isn't quite true, my performance increases relative to theirs, as expected due to my higher absolute power given similar we all have W/kg & I'm heavy)
> 
> You try to tell me I need hills to climb I say you don't because my training & performances say I don't.


 Hmm , perhaps the pro's should be doing all their pre season training on indoor tracks in Newport or Manchester, rather than the pyrenees then


----------



## Ningishzidda (6 Feb 2013)

I am applying for a patent on an attachment for Tacx i-Genius.
Its a motorised platform which elevates the BlackTrack steering pad ( and front of the bike ) when a hill is simulated.


----------



## GrasB (6 Feb 2013)

400bhp said:


> He never said he wasn't or was training
> 
> Your post is extremely one dimensioned. Properly for what


Almost everyone who rides a bike does training! However most people manage to maximise the time they're training & get close to the minimum benefit from it while minimise the time they're taking advantage of that training. That's not training properly by any definition.



> Not everyone wants to train and / or race. That does not mean either they don't have the motivation, or that they are not training "properly"
> 
> Only when you know what someone wants achieve (if anything) can you deduce whether someone is training properly


I assume you're associating training as high effort performance training. That makes you one with the single dimension with regard to training & not training.

The moment you start riding beyond your active recovery zone you're putting a load on your body that it needs to adapt to. That is training, it can be done at a low level, but is training none the less. The moment you go beyond an endurance threshold you're also training. Both of those can be done at very low effort levels, levels where the person in question doesn't need to be aware of them. This is where the default state of knackerdness comes in. This is the level that you normally train to, at some point you'll hit a brick wall where your exertion level only maintains rather than increases your fitness, strength, endurance or any combination of those 3. The fact you've taken so much offence to the statement shows you're a clown with an agenda in this case because it was nothing more than a distillation of a statement into it's true meaning. I didn't push the fact people should train properly only that they aren't motivated to do it. If they're not motivated to train properly then that's their choice.


----------



## GrasB (6 Feb 2013)

lukesdad said:


> Hmm , perhaps the pro's should be doing all their pre season training on indoor tracks in Newport or Manchester, rather than the pyrenees then


At the power levels pros push out keeping the cadence low enough to put load on the right muscle fibres becomes a problem on the flat. You would be looking at >70t chainrings.


----------



## GrasB (6 Feb 2013)

Ningishzidda said:


> 'Hill training' is training to climb hills.
> Training on the flat stood out of the saddle is 'sprint training'.
> 
> Don't get the two confused.


Sprint training is pushing hard enough to deplete your ATP reserves in a few seconds. This training causes your body to make bigger ATP reserves & develops the muscle fibres associated with very high output.

Hill training is developing higher maximal blood oxygen levels & at the higher end of the performance scale more tolerance to acidic power production in the correct muscle fibres.


----------



## lukesdad (6 Feb 2013)

GrasB said:


> At the power levels pros push out keeping the cadence low enough to put load on the right muscle fibres becomes a problem on the flat. You would be looking at >70t chainrings.


 Of course. South Downs then ?


----------



## 400bhp (6 Feb 2013)

GrasB said:


> Almost everyone who rides a bike does training! However most people manage to maximise the time they're training & get close to the minimum benefit from it while minimise the time they're taking advantage of that training. That's not training properly by any definition.
> 
> 
> I assume you're associating training as high effort performance training. That makes you one with the single dimension with regard to training & not training.
> ...


 
Look up the definition of training. You don't understand it.

Also, I'd suggest doing a poll on CC and ask whether people train whilst riding.

I haven't taken offence. It's called questioning someone's word on the internet. However I won't be taking any advice from you.


----------



## 400bhp (6 Feb 2013)

GrasB said:


> Sprint training is pushing hard enough to deplete your *ATP reserves* in a few seconds. This training causes your body to make bigger *ATP r*eserves & develops the muscle fibres associated with very high output.
> 
> Hill training is developing higher maximal blood oxygen levels & at the higher end of the performance scale more tolerance to acidic power production in the correct muscle fibres.


 
Your ability to use gobbledygook is astounding.


----------



## Rob3rt (6 Feb 2013)

400bhp said:


> Your ability to use gobbledygook is astounding.


 
That thing he said, is correct. I only know from reading up on creatine supplements back in my rugby playing days when I used to lift weights in a feeble attempt not to be so puny


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (6 Feb 2013)

400bhp said:


> Your ability to use gobbledygook is astounding.


So is your knowledge of the human body


----------



## 400bhp (6 Feb 2013)

I haven't mentioned the human body have I?


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (6 Feb 2013)

400bhp said:


> I haven't mentioned the human body have I?


Yet saw fit to rubbish a correct post that did.


----------



## 400bhp (6 Feb 2013)

Ahh, ok then if you say so


----------

