# Struggle on Hills on Road Bike



## chrisb1357 (30 Jan 2017)

Hi all, I am after some advice.

Well a year ago I got my first road bike (2015 Giant Defy 4) and at the time I was a heavy (18st 2lb). A year in and only done 1,500 miles and now (16st 12lb) I still struggle to climb hills in and around Derbyshire all the time. All my rides have many hills in them being in Derbyshire but I just seem to always struggle on them still and there is some that I just have to stop half way as my legs give in and I am just not able to get up them like the others I ride in with my club.

I was wondering would it be possible to change the gearing on my bike so make climbs a bit more easier for me like changing the cassette or even fitting a triple crankset on the front.

The bike currently has Claris double(compact) gear leavers and I am running a FSA Tempo, 34/50 crankset and SRAM PG 850 11-32 rear cassette.

Any advice would be great (I know losing some more weight may help as well)

Many Thanks
Chris


----------



## johnnyb47 (30 Jan 2017)

Fair do,s to you losing that amount of weight buddy. That's really good going so your obviously doing something right. Just keep it up at what your doing. If your pushing hard on your ride outs all the time the hills will always be hard but you will become faster going up them. The old saying about cycling is " it's doesn't get easier , you just go faster.


----------



## chrisb1357 (30 Jan 2017)

Thank you for the good comment johnnyb47. Some people I ride with who fly up the hills struggle to keep up to my pace on the flats but then its the opposite on the hills LOL


----------



## S-Express (30 Jan 2017)

34/32 is already a pretty low gear by most standards. A triple may help, but the biggest cause of your inability to cilmb is the fact that you have only done 1500 miles in the last 12 months, which works out at around 30 miles per week on average. Riding more will increase your fitness, and increasing your fitness is probably the easiest (and cheapest) way of improving your climbing.


----------



## uclown2002 (30 Jan 2017)

Ride more..................


----------



## growingvegetables (30 Jan 2017)

chrisb1357 said:


> I still struggle to climb hills in and around Derbyshire all the time.


No consolation. But some people are not hill-climbers. I'm not. And certainly wasn't - for what, 45 years? Like you, I struggled; gave up half way; and walked uncountable times.

Not sure how to explain it. But fwiw, it changed on my first overnight ride, York to Whitby. That long ******* of a climb from Pickering to the Hole of Horcum (I kid you not!). 7 miles. 800 feet. And I made it. Still remember the feeling of sheer unbelieving euphoria.

And the only difference? In deepest darkest night, I just kept pedalling *comfortably*. I couldn't see how fast or slow I was actually riding - it was just keeping a comfortable rhythm. Damn it, I could have been almost standing still, but there were no visual clues - just concentrating on keeping that comfortable rhythm going. Didn't matter a tuppeny **** how slow I was going ---- just kept that rhythm going.

And now? I'm still no fast hill-climber, but I really do *ride* up hill after hill after hill now. Took me 45 years to discover what worked for me - don't try blasting hills . They win.

Edited --- and the more miles you ride ........... nuff said


----------



## ColinJ (30 Jan 2017)

S-Express said:


> 34/11 is already a pretty low gear by most standards.


It's more likely he would use the 34/32 for climbing!


----------



## S-Express (30 Jan 2017)

ColinJ said:


> It's more likely he would use the 34/32 for climbing!



quite right - I just changed that as you posted


----------



## si_c (31 Jan 2017)

I understand exactly how you feel on the hills, I was at 19+ stone when I started riding up hills, and hills be hard. It gets better with repetition and weight loss, I'm around15st now, which makes hills easier, but at 6'5" I don't think I will ever be a lightweight hill climber.


----------



## slowmotion (31 Jan 2017)

I'm absolutely useless on hills, and always will be. I have a bike that came with 50, 39, 30 chain rings and a 27 largest gear on the back. I fitted a 28 chain
ring and a 28 sprocket on the back. It's a ludicrous set-up, but on a good day, I can get up some steepish hills. It's better for morale than walking, even if I look like a hamster on a wheel.


----------



## Ajax Bay (31 Jan 2017)

chrisb1357 said:


> I was wondering would it be possible to change the gearing on my bike so make climbs a bit more easier for me like changing the cassette or even fitting a triple crankset on the front.


Besides the advice to ride more, and seek the hills, answering whether change in gearing might help. It might. You already have a 32t large sprocket so changing the cassette will not gain you much (maybe 7%). So you need a smaller small chainwheel. And the changes to to your current bike would be wholesale and may not be worth it (new FD and RD (probably), new BB, new triple crankset, new LH shifter). As you suggest, on this N+1, "even" a triple would be the way to go and a road triple can offer a 28t or even a 26t, and if you used a MTB type triple it could be smaller eg 20t. This would give you a gear ratio for the steepest hills over 30% 'easier'.
Still have to turn the cranks.


----------



## si_c (31 Jan 2017)

Ajax Bay said:


> Besides the advice to ride more, and seek the hills, answering whether change in gearing might help. It might. You already have a 32t large sprocket so changing the cassette will not gain you much (maybe 7%). So you need a smaller small chainwheel. And the changes to to your current bike would be wholesale and may not be worth it (new FD and RD (probably), new BB, new triple crankset, new LH shifter). As you suggest, on this N+1, "even" a triple would be the way to go and a road triple can offer a 28t or even a 26t, and if you used a MTB type triple it could be smaller eg 20t. This would give you a gear ratio for the steepest hills over 30% 'easier'.
> Still have to turn the cranks.



This is actually a good idea, checking the specs on the bike, it appears it comes with a standard BSA threaded bottom bracket. This means you could swap out the chainset for something with smaller rings. You could get something like a 46-30 or 44-28 front chainset that would make going up hills signficantly easier. The downside to this is that you would have a noticeably smaller top gear, so you'd have to pedal faster. Going for a triple at the front would likely necessitate an entire new groupset to accommodate it.


----------



## Racing roadkill (31 Jan 2017)

You need to work on getting your body composition right, and your power to weight figures ( note I didn't just say weight ). Getting up hills more comfortably, is a lot about muscle endurance. Fat and muscle cells compete for oxygen. The leaner the muscle you have, the better your muscle endurance will get. You're already on a 34:32 in your lowest gear, and there really isn't a whole lot of point adding more teeth to your cassette, even if your RD can cope, and your chain is long enough.You could add a third ring with less teeth up front, but triple chainsets are difficult to find ( new ) if you have more than a 9 speed set up. It would be much more beneficial in the long run to improve your endurance. The best way to do that is reduce body fat percentages, and ride lots of hills.


----------



## biggs682 (31 Jan 2017)

Just keep riding and dont avoid the hills , the people you ride with should wait for you to catch up .

You could fit a triple on the front but i dont think it will make hills any quicker just easier at a slower pace


----------



## Drago (31 Jan 2017)

I've never been the best on hills either. However, over the years i've learned to resist the urge to automatically drop onto the granny ring for as long as possible and remain in a slightly higher gear that seemed intuitive, and that seems to have finally done it. I can now grind away indefatigably up hills, although I won't break any speed records.

I also took up running last year and my claiming seems to have improved another notch along with that.

A lightweight like you should have no problem, although there are some serious hills in your neck of the woods.


----------



## Tin Pot (31 Jan 2017)

chrisb1357 said:


> Hi all, I am after some advice.
> 
> Well a year ago I got my first road bike (2015 Giant Defy 4) and at the time I was a heavy (18st 2lb). A year in and only done 1,500 miles and now (16st 12lb) I still struggle to climb hills in and around Derbyshire all the time. All my rides have many hills in them being in Derbyshire but I just seem to always struggle on them still and there is some that I just have to stop half way as my legs give in and I am just not able to get up them like the others I ride in with my club.
> 
> ...



As other have said, ride more. This is all about power to weight.

On the flat, carrying an extra 4 stone won't make much difference, on an incline though...you've had it.

Using bike calculator . com it's easy to see the huge difference weight on an incline makes:

In a scenario of cycling 1km at 20kph on the flat, we can see that the power required for riders of different weights is in single figures:

Rider 70kg
Power 64W
Rider 90kg
Power 69W
Rider 110kg
Power 75W

But as soon as we put in a gradient, in this case riding 1km at 20kph up a 5% gradient, you can see the power output required jumps massively.

Rider 70kg
Power 290W
Rider 90kg
Power 353W
Rider 110kg
Power 418W

To put this into real terms, I'm 85kg, I can hold 300 or so watts for he 3mins this equates to, but 418 is nearer my 30 second maximum output.


----------



## Big Dave laaa (31 Jan 2017)

Lots of long endurance rides on as flat a route as you can find. This will drop your weight further and increase you fitness. Hills are never easy but for us big lads it's even harder.


----------



## Dogtrousers (31 Jan 2017)

I struggle on hills too. That's what hills are all about. I also get wet if it rains. If the people you ride with have a problem with this, then they might be the problem. And they may be easier to change than your gearing.

Getting the right mental approach can help. This may sound hippyish, but try to concentrate on the moment: the next breath, the next pedal stroke, riding as far as a pebble in the road 5m away. Try to get a steady rhythm as @growingvegetables says. Concentrate on the little picture, your immediate bubble. Don't keep looking longingly up at the top hoping it will suddenly get nearer - it won't.

@Ajax Bay is right about the changes needed to drop your gearing, although I'd expect you to be able to keep your current RD as it's probably a long cage (no guarantees tho, you'd have to do your sums regarding capacity first). A combination of googling and guesswork gives a ballpark pricing (note: these are examples, hastily picked for costing purposes only & they may not be exactly what you need or compatible with each other or with your bike): New Claris triple front mech (£20) New Claris triple left shifter (£50), new cartridge BB (£15), Triple chainset (£75), Chain (£10), Gear Cable (£5), Bar tape(£10). That comes to £185, ballpark for new stuff. You could shop around and get stuff second hand or cheaper or perhaps I've made a stupid mistake and it might be more. It would be a relaxed day's fettling to fit those new bits. You might need to buy some tools too. Whether it would be worth the effort and expense ... who knows. I kind of doubt it, but I don't live in Derbyshire.


----------



## nickyboy (31 Jan 2017)

Fellow Derbyshire person here....

At 16 stone odd you're on the heavy side for hill climbing but there are plenty of riders around here with similar weight who manage. As others have said, 30 miles a week (so maybe less than 3 hours cycling) is not really enough for challenging terrain.

To give you an idea I'm 13 stone odd and I can get up any hill in the Peak District (lowest gear is 34-27). But I'm doing about 7 hours hilly riding a week on average (100 miles or so). I'd save my money and just try to cycle a bit more. 34-32 is enough to get up any Derbyshire hill no matter what you weigh providing you're fit


----------



## Globalti (31 Jan 2017)

You don't mention your age. Hill climbing just gets slower as you age, no matter what gearing or how light the bike. I'm 60 and my neighbour aged 36 and my son aged 17 can both whup me up hills although I'm just as fast on the flat and faster down hills.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (31 Jan 2017)

During my French Alps bike rides in September, one of the group weighed 100kg, and was one of the stronger climbers. He made it look so easy, and is living proof that you can get better at hill-climbing with some practice.


----------



## Venod (31 Jan 2017)

Are you trying to keep up with others at the start of the hill, if so don't, change into a lower gear early and use a cadence that you feel comfortable with, let the goats battle it out up front, in time with more riding and more hills you will lose more weight until eventually the goats won't be that far in front and on less steep hills may be struggling to stay with you.


----------



## Racing roadkill (31 Jan 2017)

Big Dave laaa said:


> Lots of long endurance rides on as flat a route as you can find. This will drop your weight further and increase you fitness. Hills are never easy but for us big lads it's even harder.


That won't help as much as you may think. LSD riding and hill riding are like chalk and cheese. Don't focus on weight loss alone either. You can lose weight, and decrease muscle mass, which is counter productive for hill riding. Concentrate on keeping your ride intensity in the ( power and / or HR zone ) that lends itself to fat burning, but try to maintain muscle mass, by being careful with your nutrition. As has been said ( and is worth re iterating ) the key to doing well in the hills is training to increase your Power to weight ratio, maintainance of C.V. fitness, and getting your body composition right, so as that when you have your power to weight ratio where it needs to be, you can maintain the effort for long enough to get up the hill, and have the muscle endurance to make the effort more comfortable ( a greater proportion of the oxygen in your blood gets to the muscle and isn't robbed by the fat)


----------



## Oldfentiger (31 Jan 2017)

I'm better at hills than I used to be. I'm not heavy but I'm 64, and there's plenty of challenges in my locality.
Here's what I do differently now:
I used to charge onto a gradient, thinking my momentum would carry me up. Wrong. Halfway up my legs and lungs would cry enough.
I get into the gear I want earlier and just set a rhythm.
I used to concentrate on breathing (would end up hyper ventilating) - now I try to keep my breathing slow and steady.
I would be constantly monitoring how my legs felt - now if my legs start to burn I just look at the scenery and think about something else.
Also I change up a couple of cogs and stand on the pedals, using muscles differently at a lower cadence.
I climb at my own pace, regardless of those around me.
If a local climb defeats me, I'll go back on a different day and another different day until I beat it.
As others have said, I don't focus on the summit but just on tapping out a rhythm.
Works for me


----------



## BrumJim (31 Jan 2017)

I used to struggle on hills until I learned that you can't get to the top by trying to get there quicker. Whilst it may seem a good idea to take plenty of speed into the hill, and keep as much momentum as possible, experience told me to simply accept that the hill will take a long time, and will be difficult, but to ride it without getting out of breath until you can see the summit.

Now I'm more experienced and fitter, I can judge hills a lot better, push a lot harder at the bottom, and get into the red a bit earlier.


----------



## Rooster1 (31 Jan 2017)

get an 11-30 on the rear, that may help. ahhh, you have an 11-32 already. 

OK, a triple up front then!


----------



## S-Express (31 Jan 2017)

Globalti said:


> You don't mention your age. Hill climbing just gets slower as you age, no matter what gearing or how light the bike. I'm 60 and my neighbour aged 36 and my son aged 17 can both whup me up hills although I'm just as fast on the flat and faster down hills.



You're not getting 'whupped' because you are 60 and they are 36 & 17 - you are getting beat because they have a better sustainable effort level than you.


----------



## nickyboy (31 Jan 2017)

Rooster1 said:


> get an 11-30 on the rear, that may help. ahhh, you have an 11-32 already.
> 
> OK, a triple up front then!



I really don't think it is necessary. I'm about 20% lighter than the OP but my lowest gear is about 17% harder than his (34-27 v 34-32. With my weight and gearing I can get up every hill in the Peak District including those with long 20%+ sections.

Sure the OP could use a 30-32 gearing with the associated cost but by attaining a reasonable level of fitness it isn't necessary

Doing a lot of hill climbing isn't just about being fit. Managing your effort is key - understand what level of intensity you can maintain for given periods. Oh, and never forget mental toughness. I see loads of folk quitting on hard hills; not because they can't do it but rather because they don't like the pain so they walk instead


----------



## steve50 (31 Jan 2017)

chrisb1357 said:


> Thank you for the good comment johnnyb47. *Some people I ride with who fly up the hills struggle to keep up to my pace on the flats *but then its the opposite on the hills LOL



Maybe the bit in bold has something to do with you struggling on the hills, if you are going full bore on the flat you might not be keeping anything in reserve for the hills. You have to find a happy medium, perhaps if you ride at the same pace as your fellow cyclists you will have the energy in reserve when you hit the hills.
As above, practice makes (almost) perfect, the more miles you put in the fitter and stronger you will get.


----------



## CanucksTraveller (31 Jan 2017)

The only surefire way to get better at something is to do it as often as possible. Ergo, the way to ride hills better is to ride more hills. 

I can certainly ride hills much better than I could this time a year ago, but I've not changed a single cog on my bike.


----------



## Ajax Bay (31 Jan 2017)

Tin Pot said:


> Using bike calculator . com it's easy to see the huge difference weight on an incline makes


Here it is to play with: bikecalculator.com


CanucksTraveller said:


> but I've not changed a single cog on my bike [in a year]


You're clearly not putting enough miles in. or your cassette has worn very slowly.


----------



## TheJDog (31 Jan 2017)

I'm imagining if you're trying to keep up with lighter clubmates you're going to struggle. You have to ride at your own pace. You've lost a stone or more in a year doing not that many miles (though many more than most of the population), imagine how sleek you'll be when you're doing twice that per year.

I think I struggle on the hills, too, but I'm 95kg and my usual riding chums are 62kg - those 30 kilos mean that I'm usually 15-20 minutes behind them in an hour's climb, much more than that if it gets really hot. On short climbs (less than 5 minutes) if I smash it and they don't I can just about keep up.


----------



## Tin Pot (31 Jan 2017)

CanucksTraveller said:


> The only surefire way to get better at something is to do it as often as possible.



This is not true and has never been substantiated. 

It is also contrary to all scientific thought on exercise and training.


----------



## TheJDog (31 Jan 2017)

The only surefire way to improve your climbing ability is to increase your power to weight ratio. Lose weight and improve the power you can output for the duration of the climb and you'll be faster. GCN has loads of videos on improving power for certain time periods. The internet is filled with methods for losing weight


----------



## chrisb1357 (31 Jan 2017)

Thank you for all the advice people. I think more miles and more hills this year is a must and to also work out what pace is best for me on the hills when I tackle each one


----------



## bigjim (31 Jan 2017)

I,m a big heavy old guy and always struggle on steep hills. I,m pretty fit, carry little fat but my weight is a handicap against the lightweight guys on their lightweight bikes. I have to accept that and have my own system. I rarely look up on a hill and just focus on the road in front while thinking of anything else bar cycling. I try to get , in the zone. It works for me and so does, the more hills I climb, the better I become. Lowering the gearing means I spin more which means, for me, my lungs seem to be working harder and my muscles less which seems to be a trade-off on which will give up first.


----------



## TheDoctor (31 Jan 2017)

If you do still want to gear lower, then a 11-34 is about as wide as 8 speed cassettes go.
Personally, I would ride more and try and do hills at your own pace. And lose some weight if you can.
Dropping 10 kilos made more difference to my climbing than anything else before or since.


----------



## broady (31 Jan 2017)

If you do decide to go for a triple I have a Tiagra 10 speed triple groupset sat in the garage doing nothing. Think it's all tiagra except the brake calipers. 
If interested then the price is £70 posted second class standard. 

(Levers, Crankset, bottom bracket (ultegra I believe), front derailleur, rear derailleur and I think there is a cassette, but not sure if there is a chain or not)


----------



## S-Express (31 Jan 2017)

Tin Pot said:


> It is also contrary to all scientific thought on exercise and training.



No it isn't. One of the main planks of exercise physiology is 'specificity'. In that sense, there's a lot to be said for riding up hills as a way of getting better at riding up hills.

While it may not be the only way of improving, riding up hills will train the specific processes (aerobic, anaerobic, muscular & metabolic) which are used in climbing.


----------



## ColinJ (31 Jan 2017)

S-Express said:


> No it isn't. One of the main planks of exercise physiology is 'specificity'. In that sense, there's a lot to be said for riding up hills as a way of getting better at riding up hills.
> 
> While it may not be the only way of improving, riding up hills will train the specific processes (aerobic, anaerobic, muscular & metabolic) which are used in climbing.


I took it to mean that allowing adequate time for recovery between efforts is also important. I don't think it would be a great idea to try to do a 200 km ride in Derbyshire every day ...


----------



## S-Express (31 Jan 2017)

ColinJ said:


> I took it to mean that allowing adequate time for recovery between efforts is also important. I don't think it would be a great idea to try to do a 200 km ride in Derbyshire every day ...



But the original comment (ie doing something 'as often as possible') does not contradict that either.


----------



## BrumJim (31 Jan 2017)

bigjim said:


> I,m a big heavy old guy and always struggle on steep hills. I,m pretty fit, carry little fat but my weight is a handicap against the lightweight guys on their lightweight bikes. I have to accept that and have my own system. I rarely look up on a hill and just focus on the road in front while thinking of anything else bar cycling. I try to get , in the zone. It works for me and so does, the more hills I climb, the better I become. Lowering the gearing means I spin more which means, for me, my lungs seem to be working harder and my muscles less which seems to be a trade-off on which will give up first.



I bet you could beat them up a hill if they were ballasted to your weight, though?


----------



## ColinJ (31 Jan 2017)

S-Express said:


> But the original comment (ie doing something 'as often as possible') does not contradict that either.


If '_as often as possible_' is taken to mean '_except when tired from previous efforts and needing to recover_' - true!

If '_as often as possible_' is taken to mean '_spend every free moment doing it_' - false!


----------



## screenman (31 Jan 2017)

They shrunk all the hills I ride up at about the same time that I lost 4 stone. 

The longer the hill the closer I look.


----------



## S-Express (31 Jan 2017)

ColinJ said:


> If '_as often as possible_' is taken to mean '_except when tired from previous efforts and needing to recover_' - true!
> 
> If '_as often as possible_' is taken to mean '_spend every free moment doing it_' - false!



Does it even need explaining? If you are recovered - it's possible. If you are not recovered - it's not possible. As 'often as possible' means exactly that. Tin Pot was disagreeing with something the guy didn't even say.


----------



## ColinJ (31 Jan 2017)

S-Express said:


> Does it even need explaining? If you are recovered - it's possible. If you are not recovered - it's not possible. As 'often as possible' means exactly that.


To you - no. To other people - yes!

A friend of mine commuted on his bike right through one winter - that was clearly possible. He continued through to the spring - possible. He came with me to Spain and did 800+ hilly/mountainous miles in the fortnight - possible. He was feeling good when he came back so he started extending his commutes - possible. He did long rides every weekend - possible ...

His improvements stalled but it was still possible to push himself so he _did. _Further, faster, more often ... And eventually he fell apart from overtraining. It took him 6 months to fully recover.

It is _possible_ to jump in front of a speeding train. It just isn't very _sensible_ ...


----------



## Dogtrousers (31 Jan 2017)

S-Express said:


> If you are recovered - it's possible. If you are not recovered - it's not possible.


If you are not recovered, it's inadvisable. But entirely possible.


----------



## Dogtrousers (31 Jan 2017)

ColinJ said:


> He came with me to Spain and did 800+ hilly/mountainous miles in the fortnight - possible.


800+ rides in a fortnight? That's 60 rides a day. Either they were very short rides, or I think you're verging on the impossible there


----------



## S-Express (31 Jan 2017)




----------



## ColinJ (31 Jan 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> 800+ rides in a fortnight? That's 60 rides a day. Either they were very short rides, or I think you're verging on the impossible there


I thought for a second there that I HAD typed 'rides' ... 'MILES'!

It was quite spectacular when my pal's overtraining started to take hold. He fought it for a few weeks but was finally forced to admit defeat. He gave up all riding except for some bike commutes and he did those on alternate days and much slower than before. It was the only year that I got fitter than him!



S-Express said:


> View attachment 335639


The thing is that I know what you mean and you know what I mean but there are people out there who think that since 'some' = good, 'lots more' = better, and 'absolutely the maximum' = best!


----------



## Tin Pot (31 Jan 2017)

ColinJ said:


> To you - no. To other people - yes!



Indeed & thanks.


----------



## Nibor (31 Jan 2017)

Biggest and best tip I ever got and it is very similar to the bubble analogy.
"Ride your own hill"


----------



## Rooster1 (31 Jan 2017)

I forgot to say, with hills you have to *go at your own pace*, and ignore everyone else.


----------



## Lee_M (31 Jan 2017)

A few points I would mention:

The older you are the harder it is, no matter what young whippersnappers say. I'm loads fitter (weight, heart rate, fat %) than I was 10 years ago, but I'm also slower.

If you're of the larger stature its harder up hill, you'll never stay with a 65kg goat.

When you start a hill go at your pace not anyone elses. In my view its better to get up whatever speed than it is to go fast then walk the rest.

You have a decent range of gears, so you should be able to get up most things, if you don't go too fast and hard.

Until you lose weight it will continue to be hard. (I Was 16 stone, I'm now 14 1/2, this is purely due to doing miles)

One other thing, check your bike fit, if your seat is set incorrectly tyhen you arent using all your power. I raised my seat by 1/2 inch and the difference was massive, hills I previously struggled with became easy.

Stick with it, it does get easier (despite what people say), it's just that people start to push themselves more which is why it seems to stay hard. Last time I went out with a friend I'd not ridden with for about a year, he still stuggled up nemesis hill (our name for it as it seemed so hard), I coasted up it and then went back down and encouraged him up - the only difference between me and him was I'd kept riding hills and he hadnt


----------



## S-Express (31 Jan 2017)

Lee_M said:


> The older you are the harder it is, no matter what young whippersnappers say. I'm loads fitter (weight, heart rate, fat %) than I was 10 years ago, but I'm also slower.



Evidently - from a cycling perspective - you are not loads fitter, then. Unless you can clarify what you mean.


----------



## GuyBoden (31 Jan 2017)

Use a triple on the front chainring or testosterone and Epogen..............


----------



## Banjo (31 Jan 2017)

You may be able to fit an 11 /34 cassette without a new rear mech.I know you can with 105 not tried it with claris.Maybe ask at your bikeshop or they may have an old worn out 11/34 you could experiment with.probably need a new longer chain.

I have 34 /50 cranks and 11 /34 cassette.On a big climb after a long day its worth its weight in gold.


----------



## ColinJ (31 Jan 2017)

Lee_M said:


> The older you are the harder it is, no matter what young whippersnappers say. I'm loads fitter (weight, heart rate, fat %) than I was 10 years ago, but I'm also slower.





S-Express said:


> Evidently - from a cycling perspective - you are not loads fitter, then. Unless you can clarify what you mean.


OMG - I don't know how it happened, but ... I _agree_ with you!


----------



## screenman (31 Jan 2017)

ColinJ said:


> OMG - I don't know how it happened, but ... I _agree_ with you!



You may need to go and lay down.


----------



## bigjim (31 Jan 2017)

S-Express said:


> Evidently - from a cycling perspective - you are not loads fitter, then. Unless you can clarify what you mean.


Why? Fitness is not measured by speed is it? You can fly up a hill but be knackered once you get to the top but plodders like me can crest the rise and pass you with a good steady cadence. My super fit, boxer, youngest son comes out with me on his super dooper carbon bike. He weighs 2.5kg less than me. His bike is 3kg less than mine and he is half my age. He flys past me on hills. Thats it! He has to work to stay with me on downhills and on the flat. Is he fitter than me?
And stop agreeing with people! What's that all about?


----------



## warder (31 Jan 2017)

S-Express said:


> Evidently - from a cycling perspective - you are not loads fitter, then. Unless you can clarify what you mean.


Give it 10 years and you'll find out what he means


----------



## S-Express (31 Jan 2017)

I can't work out if you're agreeing, disagreeing, or just joking....sorry..


----------



## bigjim (31 Jan 2017)

S-Express said:


> I can't work out if you're agreeing, disagreeing, or just joking....sorry..


I can't work out who you are replying to. I need stronger tablets.


----------



## S-Express (31 Jan 2017)

Evidently..


----------



## S-Express (31 Jan 2017)

warder said:


> Give it 10 years and you'll find out what he means



Alternatively, you could try explaining it now?


----------



## tallliman (31 Jan 2017)

My tactics for hills is generally to sit in a gear I'm comfortable in and spin up it as much as I can.

Hitting the hills with a lower initial heart rate also seems to help me compared to a year or so ago. I guess it's just a larger amount it can go up before I hit the limit.

Only really reached that max hr toward the top of Crawleyside Bank last year...I was breathing so heavily, it was audible 50 yards away! :-) Can reach it with lots of short, sharp hills though.


----------



## Lee_M (31 Jan 2017)

S-Express said:


> Evidently - from a cycling perspective - you are not loads fitter, then. Unless you can clarify what you mean.




err as I said - weight, heart rate, % fat: weight down 2 stone, heart rate - resting heart rate down significantly , fat % down.

But I'm also 55 not 25, so I may not be fitter in absolute terms than I was at 25, but taking age into account I am.
By your reckoning cyclists wouldn't need to retire as age doesnt have anything to do with fitness, so chris boardman should be able to beat chris froome?


----------



## uclown2002 (31 Jan 2017)

*^^* actual lol


----------



## And (31 Jan 2017)

Nibor said:


> "Ride your own hill"


Nibor has it nailed. Don't compare yourself with those around you at the moment. I also live in Derbyshire, and when I cycle with my wife she can't keep up on the hills; when I ride with my (very fit) 18 year old son, I can't keep up with him. Pace yourself, try not to compare yourself with anyone else.


----------



## S-Express (31 Jan 2017)

Lee_M said:


> By your reckoning cyclists wouldn't need to retire as age doesnt have anything to do with fitness, so chris boardman should be able to beat chris froome?



Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion/strawman, but there's no particular reason that someone of Boardman's age could not cycle at a higher performance level than someone of Froome's age.


----------



## CanucksTraveller (1 Feb 2017)

Tin Pot said:


> This is not true and has never been substantiated.
> 
> It is also contrary to all scientific thought on exercise and training.



I'm sorry, run that past me again.... Are you saying that to practice (i.e. to train) is contrary to all scientific thought on exercise and training?


----------



## Lee_M (1 Feb 2017)

S-Express said:


> Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion/strawman, but there's no particular reason that someone of Boardman's age could not cycle at a higher performance level than someone of Froome's age.



so no need for youth, masters and veterans then as age is irrelevant?

I want what you're smoking


----------



## Ajax Bay (1 Feb 2017)

Lee_M said:


> I want what you're smoking


Pretty sure you don't, actually. Look at some of his other posts in other threads.


Lee_M said:


> By your reckoning cyclists wouldn't need to retire as age doesnt have anything to do with fitness


He's not saying age is irrelevant; he's saying that an old person can be fitter or just as fit as a younger person (I think), which I guess you'd agree with. Have a look at some running results for veterans (ie over 40). Are those guys/girls not fitter than the relative youngsters they compete directly against. Veteran categories are there so old blokes can beat others and 'feel the win' (or at least compare themselves with others of similar age) as opposed to be down the field behind lots of bright young things.
Many things affect fitness. Age is just one. And anyway do cyclists "need to retire"? Did Wiggins 'need to retire'? Was his hour record just so good? Is/was he 'fitter' than young Steven Burke?


----------



## Lee_M (1 Feb 2017)

But surely you've just agreed with me. If not then the veterans could win without their own category? 

And in fact I was the one that said I am fitter than I was when I was younger, and he disagrees with me


----------



## chrisb1357 (1 Feb 2017)

Well last night I had my bike fit done with Andy Bishop in Worksop as I had booked one due to getting a little lower back pain during longer rides and not feeling that the bike was setup correct by myself. Andy made many changes to the bike setup as my original setup I did myself was not correct so I just need to get out this week for a ride to see how the bike now feels.


----------



## S-Express (1 Feb 2017)

Lee_M said:


> so no need for youth, masters and veterans then as age is irrelevant?



Yes, age is irrelevant to a certain degree. Which is why Ned Overend was still winning elite level MTB races in his late 50s, riders in their late 40s can still hold elite level licences and 65yo riders can still knock out sub 20min 10s. None of this is new information.



Lee_M said:


> If not then the veterans could win without their own category?



They can, and do, frequently.



Lee_M said:


> And in fact I was the one that said I am fitter than I was when I was younger, and he disagrees with me



It was more a case of you contradicting yourself.


----------



## jefmcg (1 Feb 2017)

Why are you arguing about overtraining on a thread about someone averaging 30 miles a week?


----------



## chrisb1357 (1 Feb 2017)

Yep made me laugh and will let them get on with it lol


----------



## Dogtrousers (1 Feb 2017)

chrisb1357 said:


> Well last night I had my bike fit done with Andy Bishop in Worksop as I had booked one due to getting a little lower back pain during longer rides and not feeling that the bike was setup correct by myself. Andy made many changes to the bike setup as my original setup I did myself was not correct so I just need to get out this week for a ride to see how the bike now feels.


Best of luck. Hope it helps.


jefmcg said:


> Why are you arguing about overtraining on a thread about someone averaging 30 miles a week?


Is it about overtraining? I'd lost track, I thought it was just for the sake of it.


----------



## Tin Pot (1 Feb 2017)

CanucksTraveller said:


> I'm sorry, run that past me again.... Are you saying that to practice (i.e. to train) is contrary to all scientific thought on exercise and training?



...Running it past you again:

1. "The only surefire way to get better at something is to do it as often as possible." - You
2. "This is not true and has never been substantiated." - Me

You haven't said "The only surefire way to get better at something is to practice and train regularly"

You also haven't said that "training should be periodised, allowing for rest and recovery."

Nor have you said "but your main problem is that you're carrying too much weight to be fast uphill".

So, as it stands, we are in disagreement


----------



## S-Express (1 Feb 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Why are you arguing about overtraining on a thread about someone averaging 30 miles a week?



Pretty sure nobody is doing that. Are you on the right thread?


----------



## Ajax Bay (1 Feb 2017)

Lee_M said:


> I'm loads fitter (weight, heart rate, fat %) than I was 10 years ago, but I'm also slower.





Lee_M said:


> the veterans could win without their own category?
> And in fact I was the one that said I am fitter than I was when I was younger, and he disagrees with me


"in fact" you said you were fitter but slower than "ten years ago"(see quote), so not actually fitter by the best metric. Lighter - tick. RHR lower - tick. Fat%age lower - tick. All good. Slower - tick. Fitter - no.
Yep; veterans can be fitter and can win, and beat every (of the many) under 40s in the 'open' race. I have (not cycling) and @S-Express has offered an example.

For the OP @chrisb1357 , don't let the 'I'm a bit old, I can't get fit' syndrome get you. If you've never been really fit, huge improvements can be made and this should be very motivating: going faster for longer. Getting up those hills. But you do need to get out and ride. Do not worry about over training. At 300 miles per week it's a long way off. Blokes that have been fit/very fit all their lives have to adopt a different approach: how much work can I / should I do to keep me not much less fit, as the years go by? [without breaking down]


----------



## jefmcg (1 Feb 2017)

Ajax Bay said:


> "in fact" you said you were fitter but slower than "ten years ago"(see quote), so not actually fitter by the best metric. Lighter - tick. RHR lower - tick. Fat%age lower - tick. All good. Slower - tick. Fitter - no.


There are lots of measures of fitness. Speed isn't the only one.  It's just one. 

I bet the day before he died of a massive coronary, Jim Fixx could have run me into the ground, leaving me for dust. I hold that (assuming I don't die tomorrow) that I am fitter than he was on the last day of his life, by any measure except running speed.


----------



## S-Express (1 Feb 2017)

jefmcg said:


> There are lots of measures of fitness. Speed isn't the only one. It's just one.



What are the others (from a cycling perspective) ?


----------



## Ajax Bay (1 Feb 2017)

jefmcg said:


> There are lots of measures of fitness. Speed isn't the only one. It's just one.


Absolutely; but weight and fat %age aren't measures of fitness. Reduction of averaged (ie over a month) resting heart rate might be. We have been discussing fitness in a 'riding your bike' context, not whether you've got a dicky heart (whether you know it or not). If Jim could have run faster than you on the day before he died, then you're quite a slow runner (but this is Cycle Chat and your riding is legendary).


----------



## jefmcg (1 Feb 2017)

Ajax Bay said:


> your riding is legendary


and slow


----------



## ColinJ (1 Feb 2017)

jefmcg said:


> There are lots of measures of fitness. Speed isn't the only one. It's just one.
> 
> I bet the day before he died of a massive coronary, Jim Fixx could have run me into the ground, leaving me for dust. I hold that (assuming I don't die tomorrow) that I am fitter than he was on the last day of his life, by any measure except running speed.


There could be a big difference between 'fit' and 'healthy'.

I think I remember Chris Boardman saying that in theory the best time trial would be one where you gave so much that you collapsed or even died as you crossed the finish line. In practice, a little short of that would be advisable ... 

Oh, and his arch rival on the world hour record ...



Graeme Obree said:


> It’s like the last two minutes of a ’10’ when you’re pushing really, really hard. Except that it starts feeling like that after 15 minutes and there’s 45 still to go ... I read somewhere that horses can run themselves to death. So I thought, if a horse can do it, so can I.


----------



## Dogtrousers (1 Feb 2017)

@chrisb1357 Print some of the posts from this thread off and tape them to your handlebars. Next time you're riding up a long hill challenge yourself to make one iota of sense from them. This will be a good distraction from the pain in your legs and you will get to the top in no time.


----------



## ColinJ (1 Feb 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> @chrisb1357 Print some of the posts from this thread off and tape them to your handlebars. Next time you're riding up a long hill challenge yourself to make one iota of sense from them. This will be a good distraction from the pain in your legs and you will get to the top in no time.


Actually ... the distraction point is an interesting one. I have often ridden up a steepish hill without noticing it because I was deep in thought about something when I began the ascent.

When I first realised that I was doing that, I thought that I must be climbing more slowly because I was not concentrating on making a big effort. Surprisingly, when I checked my times I found that I wasn't much slower than usual.

For obvious reasons that is unlikely to happen on any brutish climb (say > 20%) because you are not going to get up it unless you really dig deep. I do notice it on 6%-10% though; climbs that are steep enough to require a reasonable effort while not being lung-busters.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (1 Feb 2017)

I find really spectacular views can be a great distraction from the hill-climbing effort, which is why I head for the longest, biggest hills I can find every chance I get. Yes, I know: it's counterintuitive.


----------



## Lee_M (1 Feb 2017)

Well I certainly wont be encouraging any more older cyclists and try to tell them they can get better in future as apparently only speed matters, and you cant be fitter unless you're faster.
To the OP, as I said at the start, go at your own speed and ignore everyone else, including me.

and now I'm out of here


----------



## Dogtrousers (1 Feb 2017)

Shut Up Legs said:


> I find really spectacular views can be a great distraction from the hill-climbing effort, which is why I head for the longest, biggest hills I can find every chance I get. Yes, I know: it's counterintuitive.


And they tend to have places where you just HAVE to stop ... to admire the view and take some photos.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (1 Feb 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> And they tend to have places where you just HAVE to stop ... to admire the view and take some photos.


Yes, I tend to do that a lot on the really scenic climbs.


----------



## S-Express (1 Feb 2017)

Lee_M said:


> Well I certainly wont be encouraging any more older cyclists and try to tell them they can get better in future as apparently only speed matters, and you cant be fitter unless you're faster.



What on earth are you talking about? Nobody (apart from you) has ever said that. It's like you're posting in some kind of alternative reality.


----------



## warder (2 Feb 2017)

S-Express said:


> Alternatively, you could try explaining it now?


 Age generally makes you slower. It doesn't necessarily mean you are less fit. Just older. It's part of the circle of life.
You also go grey, you get up for a wee in the middle of the night, and you get huge clumps of nose hair.


----------



## S-Express (2 Feb 2017)

warder said:


> Age generally makes you slower. It doesn't necessarily mean you are less fit. Just older. It's part of the circle of life.
> You also go grey, you get up for a wee in the middle of the night, and you get huge clumps of nose hair.



'Age' is a fairly non-specific term though, isn't it. It's also true that your performance can nearly always be improved upon, regardless of age.


----------



## warder (2 Feb 2017)

Yes you're right. Just seems to get harder as you get older.
Just for clarification, are we still talking about cycling performance. LOL.


----------



## Ajax Bay (2 Feb 2017)

Lee_M said:


> you cant be fitter unless you're faster.


Wrong way round: you can't be faster unless you're fitter.


warder said:


> Age generally makes you slower.


It's not age that 'makes' you slower, it's (mainly) a reduction in fitness. If you are 'slower', it necessarily means you are less fit. How do you want to measure 'fitness' in this context (ie athletic ability not healthiness)? And to quote a well known authority: "your performance [speed x distance or vertical height gain per minute] can nearly always be improved upon, regardless of age"
Grey - yes although not if bald. Midnight stumbles - check. Nose hair clumps - personal choice.


----------



## fatjel (3 Feb 2017)

A few years ago I bought a Giant Defy, one of the reasons was the 11-32 cassette 
I figured this would make big hills easier.. Which it did 
All my faster times up mountains tho were with the the previous bikes 14-28 cassette
I prefer easier to faster


----------



## jarlrmai (3 Feb 2017)

Stick a compact on as well, if your not putting out pro watts you need the gears to climb those same hills at half the pace.


----------



## Ajax Bay (3 Feb 2017)

jarlrmai said:


> Stick a compact on as well


What like this crankset? (OP quoted below):


chrisb1357 said:


> The bike currently has Claris double(compact) gear leavers and I am running a FSA Tempo, 34/50 crankset


----------



## jonny jeez (3 Feb 2017)

chrisb1357 said:


> Hi all, I am after some advice.
> 
> Well a year ago I got my first road bike (2015 Giant Defy 4) and at the time I was a heavy (18st 2lb). A year in and only done 1,500 miles and now (16st 12lb) I still struggle to climb hills in and around Derbyshire all the time. All my rides have many hills in them being in Derbyshire but I just seem to always struggle on them still and there is some that I just have to stop half way as my legs give in and I am just not able to get up them like the others I ride in with my club.
> 
> ...


Sounds familiar.

I can outpace most my ride buddies on the flat...for longer too but the hills stop me in my tracks sometimes and I feel like I'm going backwards.

I'm on a double too.

I know the answer, which you do too but if you find a magic cure that doesn't involve hill training, let me know.

Well done on the weight loss.


----------



## Lee_M (3 Feb 2017)

> you cant be fitter unless you're faster.





Ajax Bay said:


> Wrong way round: you can't be faster unless you're fitter.



Nope I didnt say that I was disagreeing with that :-)



> It's not age that 'makes' you slower, it's (mainly) a reduction in fitness.



and one of those reasons is age and wastage whether thats muscle or bone



> If you are 'slower', it necessarily means you are less fit. How do you want to measure 'fitness' in this context (ie athletic ability not healthiness)?


That was my whole point, fittness doesnt necessarily mean race fitness, and my original point was I could go faster when I was younger, but now I can go further, so I still claim I'm fitter than I was when I could do 20 miles at 20 mph, whereas I can now do 100 miles at 17mph, to me that is being fitter



> And to quote a well known authority: "your performance [speed x distance or vertical height gain per minute] can nearly always be improved upon, regardless of age"



I disagree, more like, for any age your performance can be improved, but as you get older you naturally get less capable,


----------



## warder (3 Feb 2017)

"It's not age that 'makes' you slower, it's (mainly) a reduction in fitness. If you are 'slower', it necessarily means you are less fit. How do you want to measure 'fitness' in this context (ie athletic ability not healthiness)? "

So, if a 39 year old premiership midfield footballer has kept himself in prime condition. Nutrition, training etc....are you saying he could compete with a 29 year old with similar dedication to training? Or will his age have caught up with him? I'm sure the 39 year old would feel supremely fit (maybe as fit as he's ever been). But he would come to the realisation that he could no longer compete, and hang up his boots because of his age.


----------



## S-Express (3 Feb 2017)

warder said:


> So, if a 39 year old premiership midfield footballer has kept himself in prime condition. Nutrition, training etc....are you saying he could compete with a 29 year old with similar dedication to training? Or will his age have caught up with him? I'm sure the 39 year old would feel supremely fit (maybe as fit as he's ever been). But he would come to the realisation that he could no longer compete, and hang up his boots because of his age.



The physical demands of football v cycling are totally different. I already gave some examples earlier of 'older' cyclists who are still able to ride at national/international levels - and in many cases they are capable still of exceeding the performance of younger riders, mainly because they continue to train hard and train appropriately. Comparing aging in cycling to other entirely different sports is a non-sequitur.


----------



## warder (3 Feb 2017)

S-Express said:


> The physical demands of football v cycling are totally different. I already gave some examples earlier of 'older' cyclists who are still able to ride at national/international levels - and in many cases they are capable still of exceeding the performance of younger riders, mainly because they continue to train hard and train appropriately. Comparing aging in cycling to other entirely different sports is a non-sequitur.


 Average age of team sky 28.3


----------



## warder (3 Feb 2017)

The highest average age of a world tour team is BMC at 29.4 for 2017.


----------



## warder (3 Feb 2017)

Why is this do you think?


----------



## ColinJ (3 Feb 2017)

warder said:


> Average age of team sky 28.3





warder said:


> The highest average age of a world tour team is BMC at 29.4 for 2017.





warder said:


> Why is this do you think?


Because younger riders are not as fit ...?


----------



## S-Express (3 Feb 2017)

warder said:


> Why is this do you think?



It's because generally speaking, your 20s & 30s are your peak physical years for athletic performance, but of course we already know this.

But why are you comparing pro riders to cyclechat amateurs? It's about as useful as comparing cyclists to footballers. Like I said earlier, if you look on the VTTA records page, you will see 60 and 65 years olds who have gone under 20mins for a 10. You will also see an 84 year old, who went under 25mins and a 91 year old who went under 30mins for the same distance. Just wondering how old are you and what's your best 10m TT time?

http://www.vtta.org.uk/information/recordsdetail.php


----------



## warder (3 Feb 2017)

I'm 53. Never done a 10m TT. I expect I would be trailing in the wake of said 84 year old.


----------



## S-Express (3 Feb 2017)

warder said:


> I'm 53. Never done a 10m TT. I expect I would be trailing in the wake of said 84 year old.



So what does that tell you?


----------



## ColinJ (3 Feb 2017)

S-Express said:


> So what does that tell you?


That warder is fitter! (But slower ...)


----------



## S-Express (3 Feb 2017)

ColinJ said:


> That warder is fitter! (But slower ...)



obviously


----------



## warder (3 Feb 2017)

I'm 53 and never done a TT?


----------



## Drago (3 Feb 2017)

S-Express said:


> The physical demands of football v cycling are totally different.


Indeed. Feigning injury is a physical skill that most cyclists will never master.


----------



## warder (3 Feb 2017)

So, at last we agree. You can be in your peak physical and athletic condition in your 20's and 30's. You can also be in incredible physical and athletic condition in your 50's and 60's and beyond. But a 50 or 60 year old in peak physical condition won't be able to compete with a 20 or 30 year old in peak physical condition. There I knew I was right. Also I was just wondering how old you are and what star sign are you.


----------



## ColinJ (3 Feb 2017)

warder said:


> So, at last we agree. You can be in your peak physical and athletic condition in your 20's and 30's. You can also be in incredible physical and athletic condition in your 50's and 60's and beyond. But a 50 or 60 year old in peak physical condition won't be able to compete with a 20 or 30 year old in peak physical condition. There I knew I was right. Also I was just wondering how old you are and what star sign are you.


Not quite ... How about a genetically gifted 60 year old in peak condition vs a genetically unlucky 20 year old in _their_ peak condition! (Hint: The 60 year old would probably win a race between them.)


----------



## Drago (3 Feb 2017)

And it depends what physical skills and attributes one is concerned with. Some of the strongest lifters are well into their Forties.


----------



## warder (3 Feb 2017)

Drago said:


> And it depends what physical skills and attributes one is concerned with. Some of the strongest lifters are well into their Forties.


----------



## warder (3 Feb 2017)

ColinJ said:


> Not quite ... How about a genetically gifted 60 year old in peak condition vs a genetically unlucky 20 year old in _their_ peak condition! (Hint: The 60 year old would probably win a race between them.)


----------



## User6179 (3 Feb 2017)

I am 40 odd , my 20 year old self would beat me over a mile but I would beat him over a 100 miles , am I fitter or less fit now ?


----------



## warder (3 Feb 2017)

I'm 53 never done a TT. And I hate pedants


----------



## jefmcg (3 Feb 2017)

Eddy said:


> am I fitter or less fit now ?


Yes


----------



## S-Express (3 Feb 2017)

warder said:


> But a 50 or 60 year old in peak physical condition won't be able to compete with a 20 or 30 year old in peak physical condition. There I knew I was right.



I don't think anyone said any different, so congrats on winning an argument with yourself there..



warder said:


> Also I was just wondering how old you are and what star sign are you.




View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZklwTGZutc


----------



## warder (3 Feb 2017)

Eddy said:


> I am 40 odd , my 20 year old self would beat me over a mile but I would beat him over a 100 miles , am I fitter or less fit now ?


 Ask S-Express. He's quite the expert, don't you know.


----------



## jefmcg (3 Feb 2017)

Drago said:


> Some of the strongest lifters are well into their Forties.



But the important question is, how fast can they cycle?


----------



## warder (3 Feb 2017)

S-Express said:


> I don't think anyone said any different, so congrats on winning an argument with yourself there..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 Glad you've conceded.


----------



## warder (3 Feb 2017)

jefmcg said:


> But the important question is, how fast can they cycle?


Whilst lifting.


----------



## Tin Pot (3 Feb 2017)

warder said:


> I'm 53 never done a TT. And I hate pedants



What about necklaces?


----------



## Tin Pot (3 Feb 2017)

warder said:


> Whilst lifting.


----------



## warder (3 Feb 2017)

Tin Pot said:


> View attachment 336027


But which one is the fitter? Youngest or oldest?


----------



## warder (3 Feb 2017)

Tin Pot said:


> What about necklaces?


Necklaces yes. Nothing too flashy mind. Definitely not a pearl one.


----------



## Tin Pot (3 Feb 2017)

warder said:


> But which one is the fitter? Youngest or oldest?



The guy at the back in the jump suit is the fitter. Gas, I think. About 28yo.


----------



## warder (3 Feb 2017)

Tin Pot said:


> The guy at the back in the jump suit is the fitter. Gas, I think. About 28yo.


 Nah, guy on the top, about 40 yo, looks wirey.


----------



## warder (3 Feb 2017)

If the wind catches those ears though.......


----------



## bondirob (3 Feb 2017)

Get a mtb crankset, manufacturers give us totally inappropriate gearing for new riders. I'm not new and although I'm 15.5 stone and decent at climbing for my size I've recently put a 11/36 cassette on my 9 speed Sora (yes it does work with the medium cage derailleur).
Also I've got an 11/40 ready to go on my 105 once I've bought a Lindarets Road Link. 
I noticed I was dropping some lighter fitter riders when I was in my previous lowest gear of 34/11 and they were grinding away with a 28 or less, so I thought I'd take it one step further and see how it goes.


----------



## Ajax Bay (3 Feb 2017)

Back on thread (well OT actually)


Dogtrousers said:


> Print some of the posts from this thread off and tape them to your handlebars. Next time you're riding up a long hill challenge yourself to make one iota of sense from them


I've taken the liberty of selecting some quotes for your handlebars (age/fitness focused).


Globalti said:


> Hill *climbing just gets slower as you age*, no matter what gearing or how light the bike.





S-Express said:


> You're not getting 'whupped' because you are 60 and they are 36 & 17 - you are getting beat because they have a better sustainable effort level than you.





Lee_M said:


> *The older you are the harder it is*, no matter what young whippersnappers say.* I'm loads fitter* (weight, heart rate, fat %) than I was 10 years ago, *but I'm also slower*.





S-Express said:


> from a cycling perspective - you are not loads fitter, then





Lee_M said:


> err as I said - weight, heart rate, % fat: weight down 2 stone, heart rate - resting heart rate down significantly, fat % down. But I'm also 55 not 25, so *I may not be fitter* in absolute terms than I was at 25, but taking age into account I am.
> By your reckoning cyclists wouldn't need to retire as age doesnt have anything to do with fitness





Ajax Bay said:


> He's not saying age is irrelevant; he's saying that an old person can be fitter or just as fit as a younger person





Lee_M said:


> I was the one that said *I am fitter than I was when I was younger*





jefmcg said:


> There are lots of measures of fitness. Speed isn't the only one. It's just one.





S-Express said:


> What are the others (from a cycling perspective) ?





ColinJ said:


> big difference between 'fit' and 'healthy'





warder said:


> *Age generally makes you slower.* It doesn't necessarily mean you are less fit.





ColinJ said:


> younger riders are not as fit





ColinJ said:


> @warder is fitter! (But slower ...)





Eddy said:


> I am 40 odd , my 20 year old self would beat me over a mile but I would beat him over a 100 miles , am I fitter or less fit now ?


Not enough data. Over what distance would your 20 year old self beat your 40+ current self?


----------



## warder (3 Feb 2017)

Oooh.. is this a test? 6.2km?


----------



## Tin Pot (3 Feb 2017)

100m


----------



## chrisb1357 (6 Feb 2017)

Just checking to see if your both still at it debating.....


----------



## nickyboy (6 Feb 2017)

chrisb1357 said:


> Just checking to see if your both still at it debating.....



I think "debating" is being a little over-generous


----------



## Ajax Bay (6 Feb 2017)

nickyboy said:


> "debating" is being a little over-generous


'Debating' - clearly over generous: this is Cycle Chat, after all.


chrisb1357 said:


> Just checking to see if your both still at it


'Both'? I think my set of quotes from 8 contributors suggests that we managed to get a good discussion group going. Apologies to you both for not including a quote from either of you. Please don't feel left out.


----------



## jefmcg (6 Feb 2017)

Please please please ... let's open a new dialectic about whether it was a debate or a discussion or .... something else.

Let's see how far we can derail a thread


----------



## ColinJ (7 Feb 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Let's see how far we can derail a thread


Ok, I would like to discuss if there were a thread about train derailments, would it be derailing the thread to actually stay on topic?


----------



## Ajax Bay (7 Feb 2017)

jefmcg said:


> please ... let's open a new dialectic about whether it was a debate or a discussion


Well, make a bit of an effort, then. There's a hill to climb and the sun is shining (well it is down here) and will shine tomorrow too. Don't just say 'let's climb that hill'. Turn the cranks, drop down a few gears and let's go and struggle (or not) on them there hills.


----------



## Dogtrousers (9 Feb 2017)

And here's an article on the original subject 

http://road.cc/content/feature/2135...ower-gears-make-climbing-easier-heres-how-get


----------



## Ajax Bay (9 Feb 2017)

chrisb1357 said:


> I was wondering would it be possible to change the gearing on my bike so make climbs a bit more easier for me like changing the cassette


Have a look at @bondirob 's thread shimano-medium-cage-derailleur-capacity.


----------



## S-Express (9 Feb 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> And here's an article on the original subject
> 
> http://road.cc/content/feature/2135...ower-gears-make-climbing-easier-heres-how-get



The majority of which, the OP says he already has, on page 1.


----------



## Dogtrousers (9 Feb 2017)

S-Express said:


> The majority of which, the OP says he already has, on page 1.


What, if anything, is that supposed to mean?
It's an article on the subject of the thread. If you don't like it - don't read it.


----------



## S-Express (9 Feb 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> What, if anything, is that supposed to mean?
> It's an article on the subject of the thread. If you don't like it - don't read it.



The thing is, I have read it. The article in your link suggests doing a load of stuff that the OP has either already got, or already done. Ergo, the info contained in the article is a bit useless in this context.


----------



## Dogtrousers (9 Feb 2017)

I know you love to whip up pointless arguments, but I'm afraid you're on to a loser this time. I'm not interested.


----------



## S-Express (9 Feb 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> I know you love to whip up pointless arguments, but I'm afraid you're on to a loser this time. I'm not interested.



Ironically, I think you're the one starting a pointless argument. I'm simply pointing out that if your intention was to help the OP, then he's already done most, if not all of that. There's nothing to argue about, so settle down.


----------



## ColinJ (2 Jul 2018)

ColinJ said:


> Actually ... the distraction point is an interesting one. I have often ridden up a steepish hill without noticing it because I was deep in thought about something when I began the ascent.
> 
> When I first realised that I was doing that, I thought that I must be climbing more slowly because I was not concentrating on making a big effort. Surprisingly, when I checked my times I found that I wasn't much slower than usual.
> 
> For obvious reasons that is unlikely to happen on any brutish climb (say > 20%) because you are not going to get up it unless you really dig deep. I do notice it on 6%-10% though; climbs that are steep enough to require a reasonable effort while not being lung-busters.


Ha ha - it happened again today and some ramps WERE steep but I _still _didn't notice them. I was cycling back from Thursden towards Widdop (up in the hills between Hebden Bridge/Colne). This is the profile of the climb ...







The ramp from point *1 is briefly about 25%. *1 -> *2 _averages _18%. After *2 the road levels off for about 150 metres and then dips down to point *3 where it kicks right back up again. *3 -> *4 averages 16%. *4 -> *5 gives some relief, but still averages 7%. *5 -> *6 averages 20%. *6 -> *7 is easy and then the road kicks up one last time, averaging 11% from *7 -> *8.

I was looking up the hill at point *1 and was fully aware of how tough it was as I climbed there. As soon as I had respite at *2 I started thinking about some software that I am writing. And then to my surprise, I was suddenly at *8 - I had no recollection of riding the road from *2 -> *8, but I could remember everything I had been thinking about my software!

It was a very odd feeling ...


----------



## ColinJ (2 Jul 2018)

Oops - Meant to post this in a more recent discussion!  (I'll link that thread to the post above.)


----------



## Lozz360 (3 Jul 2018)

chrisb1357 said:


> Hi all, I am after some advice.
> 
> Well a year ago I got my first road bike (2015 Giant Defy 4) and at the time I was a heavy (18st 2lb). A year in and only done 1,500 miles and now (16st 12lb) I still struggle to climb hills in and around Derbyshire all the time. All my rides have many hills in them being in Derbyshire but I just seem to always struggle on them still and there is some that I just have to stop half way as my legs give in and I am just not able to get up them like the others I ride in with my club.
> 
> ...


As already mentioned, a 34/32 gear is quite low already. Is your saddle set high enough? I found that raising the saddle following a bike fit (I'm not suggesting you need a bike fit) hills became noticeably easier.


----------

