Help on hills needed

[amaferanga]

I am not an expert, Totallyfixed is a member on the forum and trains his wife to compete in the National Hill Climbs. He has posted on here many times about the benefits of the correct technique when climbing hills. eg

"Watch someone who is an expert at anything in life and it will always look effortless and that's the point I am trying to make, technique triumphs over power. My better half dr_pink was first lady up the Shap hill climb, I know she doesn't generate the power that one or two of the other ladies have, yet she beat them, including the hill record holder and a lot of men, how? By having very good technique, she also suffers from asthma and has a very poor peak flow, which makes her 17.2mph average up a 9.1 mile hill climb even more special. [can you tell I am proud?]."​

totallyfixed, 17 May 2012 Report


Maybe you could PM him and he will explain. My attempts at improving my technique have been to relax my upper body so more of my CV fitness is going to the muscles I am using to actually pedal up the hill rather than tensing my upper body. Maybe I am totally wrong and I am wasting my time.

She quite clearly has better power/weight ratio though. Her 'good' technique and optimal pacing may allow her to get up the hill as quick as she can with the power available, but good technique doesn't allow you to defy the laws of physics.

 

[Fab Foodie]

You're comparing cycling (mainly legs) to swimming (mainly arms)...??



Assuming they've both mastered the 'technique' of turning the pedals, and assuming their power outputs, w/kg and threshold levels are indeed equal, then it's going to be a dead heat. What else would you expect..?

The one with the better technique to win... comfortably.

Blimey this is hard work ...

Nowhere have I said that technique is any substitute for fitness, hard work/practicing hills or whatever, IT COMPLIMENTS and as such is beneficial to somebody who is poor at climbing, so I don't know why you keep banging-on about fitness because I AGREE. So let's get that one straight first.

BUT using muscles that don't need to be used such as tense shoulders arms an backs etc is not efficient nor is wrestling with the bike as many newbies do, it's wasting 02 which could be better used elsewhere, like your legs.
Where/how you sit on the seat relative to the pedals/bars affects mechanical efficiency/leverage if you like, so more gains there. Sitting differently allows other muscle groups to come into play which can be used to generate more power. Cadence affects how well you climb and your stamina. When to stand and honk and when to sit and spin makes a big difference, and so on.
The great things about improving technique is that they are instant and free gains which will enhance increased fitness.

Oh, and swimming? Tell you what, go and get timed doing front crawl over 2 lengths of your local pool. Then immediately have say 30 mins training on technique with a swimming coach, listen, learn, then see how mach quicker and easier 2 lengths of the pool suddenly become. Again, faster but no change in fitnes, only better technique.
QED.

 

[black'n'yellow]

I am not an expert, Totallyfixed is a member on the forum and trains his wife to compete in the National Hill Climbs. He has posted on here many times about the benefits of the correct technique when climbing hills. eg

"Watch someone who is an expert at anything in life and it will always look effortless and that's the point I am trying to make, technique triumphs over power. My better half dr_pink was first lady up the Shap hill climb, I know she doesn't generate the power that one or two of the other ladies have, yet she beat them, including the hill record holder and a lot of men, how? By having very good technique, she also suffers from asthma and has a very poor peak flow, which makes her 17.2mph average up a 9.1 mile hill climb even more special. [can you tell I am proud?]."​

totallyfixed, 17 May 2012 Report


Maybe you could PM him and he will explain. My attempts at improving my technique have been to relax my upper body so more of my CV fitness is going to the muscles I am using to actually pedal up the hill rather than tensing my upper body. Maybe I am totally wrong and I am wasting my time.

With respect to 'totallyfixed', he hasn't actually said what this mysterious' technique is either. Having said that, the only way that his misses would have beaten all those people up the climb is by going faster than them - which means putting out more w/kg than them.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Does anyone want to comment on the technique of Thomas Voeckler or perhaps Chris Froome? Neither look particularly good when they're climbing. Do you think they should improve their technique and would that make them quicker up the hills?

It doesn't matter whether they look good or not, just whether they're as afficient as they could be.

 

[Fab Foodie]

but good technique doesn't allow you to defy the laws of physics.

Good technique IS PHYSICS! That's the point, it's about maximising physical abilities, and it's free, it costs nothing and brings only gains, I don't see why you're struggling with this. All atheletes work on technique as well as fitness.

 

[black'n'yellow]

BUT using muscles that don't need to be used such as tense shoulders arms an backs etc is not efficient nor is wrestling with the bike as many newbies do, it's wasting 02 which could be better used elsewhere, like your legs.
Where/how you sit on the seat relative to the pedals/bars affects mechanical efficiency/leverage if you like, so more gains there. Sitting differently allows other muscle groups to come into play which can be used to generate more power. Cadence affects how well you climb and your stamina. When to stand and honk and when to sit and spin makes a big difference, and so on.
The great things about improving technique is that they are instant and free gains which will enhance increased fitness.

All of that is a symptom of poor fitness. All of that will fix itself as fitness improves. Like I said before, you can apply all that to an unfit newbie and it will make sod all difference to their time up the hill.

Oh, and swimming? Tell you what, go and get timed doing front crawl over 2 lengths of your local pool. Then immediately have say 30 mins training on technique with a swimming coach, listen, learn, then see how mach quicker and easier 2 lengths of the pool suddenly become. Again, faster but no change in fitnes, only better technique.
QED.

there you go again - comparing swimming to cycling.

 

[MrJamie]

I find hill practice helps not only in improving fitness, but learning to find a sustainable effort level rather than pushing too hard early and limping up the end. Also knowing what size hills you can sprint/power up. Im terrible at hills because im very heavy, but i find i can get up most stuff fine (but slowly) if i just take it in an easy gear, then if i have anything left in the tank i can speed up towards the end.

I find running is really good for pushing aerobic fitness, purely from a personal point of view that i dont tend to keep the intensity up while cycling and i like to keep up both. Im not disputing that cycling hill training would be better of course.

 

[Hacienda71]

She quite clearly has better power/weight ratio though. Her 'good' technique and optimal pacing may allow her to get up the hill as quick as she can with the power available, but good technique doesn't allow you to defy the laws of physics.

I didn't say it did, I was pointing out that good technique will help as you had already said, which is what B&Y is saying is rubbish.

 

[amaferanga]

Good technique IS PHYSICS! That's the point, it's about maximising physical abilities, and it's free, it costs nothing and brings only gains, I don't see why you're struggling with this. All atheletes work on technique as well as fitness.

But you can't actually define 'good' technique other than picking the right gear and relaxing your shoulders! If good technique isn't the same as looking good on the bike then how the heck do you know if someone has 'good' technique? What you want to do on the bike for hills is maximise your power output. If that's what you're calling 'good' technique then fine, we agree. Beyond the very basic stuff like the right gear etc. then there's not really much you can work on since what works for one won't necessarily work for another. You'd be hard pushed to say that Voeckler in particular has good technique, but his style works for him. I doubt anyone coached him to ride like that, nor do I think someone making him ride differently would make him faster.

So here's a question then. As a cyclist who has never thought about technique when climbing how should I go about improving my technique? Bear in mind that I race as a 2nd Cat and had a pretty decent result in the only hillclimb I've done (top ten in the Monsall HC last year), but what can I do to make me a better climber?

 

[Andrew_Culture]

I know we're talking about hill climbing here, but I wanted to share a quick downhill technique that I think is really important - when going down a hill make a gleeful weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee sound and life will feel much improved.

 

[Fab Foodie]

All of that is a symptom of poor fitness. All of that will fix itself as fitness improves. Like I said before, you can apply all that to an unfit newbie and it will make sod all difference to their time up the hill.



there you go again - comparing swimming to cycling.

You really don't get this do you?

Poor technique IS NOT the same as a lack of fitness, they are not the same, they are comlimentary abilities and BOTH help you to go faster. Good fitness poorly applied is wasted effort.
An unfit newbie in any sporting endeavour WILL go faster by instantly improving his technique. I gave an example from another sport also by way of analogy to demonstrate that it's not just cycling. I could easily have said the same about athletic sprinting from the years of watching my daughter being coached.
I know that improving technique works from the many many people I've helped over the years take-up cycling, I know also from the feedback of the many newbies on CC who used my suggestion and replied days later that it made a big difference to their climbing ability.
It's good advice and it costs nothing to try.

 

[black'n'yellow]

You really don't get this do you?

Realistically, I think you're the one who is out of your depth.

Good fitness poorly applied is wasted effort.

example..?

An unfit newbie in any sporting endeavour WILL go faster by instantly improving his technique. I gave an example from another sport also by way of analogy to demonstrate that it's not just cycling. I could easily have said the same about athletic sprinting from the years of watching my daughter being coached.

Some cycle-related examples would be useful. I've no doubt that for pistol shooting (for instance), technique is very important. For a sport like cycling, where aerobic performance is everything, technique is a long way down the list of priorities - especially when you can't even define it.

I know that improving technique works from the many many people I've helped over the years take-up cycling, I know also from the feedback of the many newbies on CC who used my suggestion and replied days later that it made a big difference to their climbing ability.

lots of anecdote / bugger-all evidence.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Realistically, I think you're the one who is out of your depth.



example..?



Some cycle-related examples would be useful. I've no doubt that for pistol shooting (for instance), technique is very important. For a sport like cycling, where aerobic performance is everything, technique is a long way down the list of priorities - especially when you can't even define it.



lots of anecdote / bugger-all evidence.

So why do sports coaches (including cycle-coaches) work on technique then if it's of no consequence?

 

[black'n'yellow]

So why do sports coaches (including cycle-coaches) work on technique then if it's of no consequence?

As I said before, I'm only really concerned with talking about cycling - I can't speak for other sports. I'm not aware of any specific hill climbing techniques being taught at BC Level 2 (which is the level I coach at) other than body weight and gear selection - and even those are directed more at cyclocross or MTB, which is not what this thread is about. Any half decent coach will tell you that going up hill quicker relies more on aerobic performance, not technique. But then I've said all this before....

 

[ColinJ]

I know that swimming isn't a great example because technique in swimming is far more important than it is in cycling but it does illustrate FF's point well ... I used to work as a factory labourer in my 20s. It got me very fit and strong. I also used to run 2 or 3 times a week and swim 3 times a week after work. I was very powerful.

I could swim all day if I had to but I couldn't swim fast. There was a girl aged about 8 who was often in the pool at about the same time as me and she used to swim 4,000 metres in the time it took me to do 2,000. I absolutely thrashed myself trying to keep up with her but my energy was wasted. She propelled herself forwards almost effortlessly whereas I was busting a gut to just stir water!

Yes, power-to-weight ratio is ninety-something percent important when climbing hills on a bike, but it isn't one hundred percent, which is all that FF and totallyfixed are getting at.

And as if by magic ... totallyfixed and dr_pink have just texted me to say they are passing through Hebden Bridge on their way back from buying a new bike so I am going out to have lunch with them. I'll mention this thread to them!

Byeeeee (puts shoes on and heads for door) ...