Climbing mystery.

kmavm said:

A local benchmark climb ascends 1260 (384 meters) feet in 3.3miles (5.3km), about 7.2%.

Which climb? Obviously not King's Mountain - a mile too short. Is it Montebello, up to the school? Old La Honda?

Quoted post said:

These are really lousy times.

Let's be quantitative. Based on your 21:45 time for 3.3 miles, you're climbing a 7.2% grade at 9.1 mph. If you're 152 pounds and your bike is another 21 pounds, you're averaging about 270 W for that duration. That's not chump change. No, it's not going to classify you as a Alpine climber, but 3.9 W/kg puts you above average, as far as I know. See:

kreuzotter.deespeed.htmOpen ↗

for the power calculator and:

cyclingpeakssoftware.compowerprofile v3.gifOpen ↗

for Dr. Andy Coggan's power profiling chart. A differently labeled version of that chart:

thebikeage.compprof.gifOpen ↗

classifies your climbing toward the top of Cat 3.

Quoted post said:

Even as lousy times go, why am I worse now?

Are you really sure that you're worse? Were these repeated tests (both your "best" time and your recent "worse" time) or just "one of" numbers? If it's the latter, a 10% or more difference could easily be explained by your level of rest, environmental conditions such as temperature, etc. Compare the two times only if you're very sure that your physiological and training state, and the environmental factors were exactly the same.

Quoted post said:

I can kick out much, MUCH more power on the flats than I could 2 years ago, and I weigh less!

If you weigh less and you're climbing at or around the same speed, you've increased your power output per unit body mass. That's good. Have you been doing more training on the flats and less training on hills in the intervening two years? Climbing requires very specific training. It's a high power/low cadence regime as opposed to the high power/high cadence regime of riding fast on flats. If you don't put in enough time on hills, you're not going to improve your climbing. Simply doing intervals on flat terrain, or on an indoor trainer (at a high cadence), is not going to translate as effectively to climbing improvement, either.

Quoted post said:

guys with hairy legs and USPS jerseys (not that there's anything wrong with that!)

Hey! I take offense at that. I have hairy legs and do sometimes ride in my USPS jersey! More likely though, you'll see me in my Team In Training jersey. 🙂

Quoted post said:

Mental?

It's very possible for it to be mental. When I first resumed cycling seriously two years ago (after a more than a decade hiatus, never having ridden seriously before), I had a huge psychological problem with pacing myself up climbs and riding within myself. I would attack way too aggressively and of course be unable to sustain it, having to outright stop. That of course demoralized me and fed back to itself. Climbing is hard and improvements in climbing come slowly. Don't put undue stress on yourself by comparing yourself against people you observe casually, whether they have hairy legs or not, because you don't know what their background is. Make it a goal to improve your own time in a gradual progression than outright passing strangers.

If it makes you feel better, I can just about sustain 225 W for a 20 minute effort and I consider that a good climb:

employees.org20050712T183833.09580.srd.htmlOpen ↗

Berend

kmavm said:

I'm a 28-year-old male, 5'8" (172cm) 152 pounds (69 kilos). I've been riding seriously for four years, racing for one year.

A local benchmark climb ascends 1260 (384 meters) feet in 3.3miles (5.3km), about 7.2%. The cut-off for a "respectable" time among serious riders on this hill is 20 minutes. My best ever time is 21:45, achieved over two years ago, when I weighed six more pounds. Today I tried to measure myself and came up with 23:26.

A couple of observations:

1. These are really lousy times.
   
2. Even as lousy times go, why am I worse now? I can kick out much, MUCH more power on the flats than I could 2 years ago, and I weigh less!
   

I ride hills, and many of the local ones are substantially longer than this benchmark hill. I do intervals. I have a coach. I've made tons of progress in other areas of my riding. But I seem utterly unable to climb with power. There are fat guys with hairy legs and USPS jerseys (not that there's anything wrong with that!) who can ride that hill faster than 23:30.

So, what's up with me? Do I need to lose weight? The weight I've lost so far seems to have done more harm than good. Just ride more hills? At least once a week I do a long, hilly ride that involves at least two longer climbs (longer than 30 minutes each). Is it technical? Mental? Am I just the least talented cyclist ever to walk the earth 🙁?

I thank you for your opinions...

Most everything covered already by squid, but if you want to be a good climber you still need to lose around another 20 lbs/9kg. Not saying it would work for you but if your power is up at lower weight you obviously have not lost too much weight yet.

I think mental strength and specific training, along with only 1 data point (that's how politicians do statistics). Pavement conditions can really make a difference too. Comparing climbing on the painted line of newly paved blacktop to busted up chip and seal would be a major difference.

squidwranglr said:

I had a huge psychological problem with pacing myself up climbs and riding within myself.

Kmavm, I wanted to highlight this sentence for you again. 3.3 miles in 20 minutes is 10mph average (which is a pretty good clip for a 7.2% grade, and certainly not where I would draw the line as a "respectable minimum"😉. If you have an HRM or Power meter, try riding the hill again but just maintain your 20 minute TT effort level for the entire climb. Don't go all out at any point, just work on pacing yourself for an even 20 minute effort. It might feel like you're going too slow at times, but the point is to stay in an even, controlled, sustainable rhythm from bottom to top.

If you can't reach the top within 20 minutes, then either your buddies are lying/exaggerating to you about their times, or your power isn't quite where you think. Maybe you could ride the hill on the wheel of one of the ~19min riders and see what they do differently?

Thanks for all the responses!

squidwranglr said:

Which climb? Obviously not King's Mountain - a mile too short. Is it Montebello, up to the school? Old La Honda?

Yes, this is Old La Honda.

Quoted post said:

Are you really sure that you're worse? Were these repeated tests (both your "best" time and your recent "worse" time) or just "one of" numbers? If it's the latter, a 10% or more difference could easily be explained by your level of rest, environmental conditions such as temperature, etc. Compare the two times only if you're very sure that your physiological and training state, and the environmental factors were exactly the same.

Good points. My "best" time was done during March, in relatively cool weather. This "worst" time was just yesterday, on a hot afternoon. There is also a repeatability question here; the 23:30 effort yesterday wasn't representative. 22:15 is a more representative recent attempt.

To mises: 20 pounds sure sounds like an awful lot. I haven't weighed that little since I was about 14. Where are you coming up with that figure?

kmavm said:

To mises: 20 pounds sure sounds like an awful lot. I haven't weighed that little since I was about 14. Where are you coming up with that figure?

I dunno where the previous poster got that number... But, it is said that the best mountain climbers weight in at less than 2 pounds per inch of height. In order for you to even have a chance at being a world class climber you would have to weight in at ~~ 2*[(5*12)+8]= 136 pounds or less.

Maybe 20 is a little drastic. But if you could lose 15 pounds that improve your climbing by a lot.

Hi there

Climbing speed is a function of power / weight. if you are climbing the same climb now at a slower pace than previously then you will be putting out less power / kg. If, added to that, you have lost weight, then you are definitely putting out less power up that particular climb than when you clocked your best time.

Reasons may be that the weight loss has cost you too much power, particularly in the 20 min region that you are riding for this climb. You may feel that you are putting out more power on the flats (and indeed you might be) but this i would imagine is over a longer duration.

Your training over the past year may have focused on flat, tempo type riding and less on high intensity climbing at threshold power levels. Are your intervals done at the correct intensity (if so, how have you arrived at this intensity?) My guess is that your intervals may not be long enough and may not be a t a high enough intensity (we prescribe 9 X 7 mins @ threshold power with 2/3 mins rest)

Bottom line is that if your power to weight has truly increased, then you would be climbing this hill faster. The other elements that have been cited as reasons for a slower time might explain 20-30 secs at best but not every time you ride it.

Good luck

Peter

squidwranglr said:

cyclingpeakssoftware.compowerprofile v3.gifOpen ↗

for Dr. Andy Coggan's power profiling chart. A differently labeled version of that chart:

thebikeage.compprof.gifOpen ↗

classifies your climbing toward the top of Cat 3.

Note that not only are the labels different, the numbers themselves have changed, as has the duration/definition of the last column - it used to be 20 min, now it is "functional threshold power" whichever of the seven (or eight, if you assume a constant percentage of MAP) ways you care to determine it.

kmavm said:

22:15 is a more representative recent attempt.

Vs. 21:45 for your all-time best? That's not much of a difference, but even so you'd think w/ 6 fewer lbs to haul up the hill you'd be faster, not slower (as you said). Thus, the questions that come to my mind are 1) how/how quickly did you lose that weight, and 2) could you afford to lose that much to start with?

acoggan said:

Note that not only are the labels different, the numbers themselves have changed, as has the duration/definition of the last column - it used to be 20 min, now it is "functional threshold power" whichever of the seven (or eight, if you assume a constant percentage of MAP) ways you care to determine it.

Andy,

Thanks - I hadn't scrutinized it carefully enough to notice that. The chart with the FT column instead of the 20 min one is the "golden" one, then? Out of curiousity, were the more specific Pro, Cat 1/2/3, etc. labels in the other chart your assignments or added by someone who modified your original table? I wasn't sure as I did not see that version of the chart on the CyclingPeaks site.

Thanks again,

Berend

Basically got the number from what most of the good climbing pros of your height weigh, which also is where the 2 lb per inch rule comes from. I'm 68.5"/174cm and never feel I am climbing very well until I am under 136lbs/62kg. If I got down to the same body fat % as the Tour riders it would be around 128 lbs/58kg.

I didn't intend to say it would work for you since you may not have the morphology to allow it, but that's where the best climbers are.

Also on a climb of ~20 minutes a lot of non-climbers can muscle their way up at a high intensity so it's really too short to say you whether you are a good "climber", it's more a test of raw power. The Ardennes classics have a lot of 4-5 km climbs that are quite steep but climbers aren't the ones that excel in those races.

acoggan said:

Vs. 21:45 for your all-time best? That's not much of a difference, but even so you'd think w/ 6 fewer lbs to haul up the hill you'd be faster, not slower (as you said). Thus, the questions that come to my mind are 1) how/how quickly did you lose that weight, and 2) could you afford to lose that much to start with?

I lost the weight recently, and somewhat mysteriously. There was no major increase in training. I may have been slightly more picky about my diet than usual, but not radically so. The first two pounds came over the course of about a month, and then another four came off in the last two weeks.

I don't think I'm sick or overtrained. I feel pretty darned good on the bike these days. Overall, I feel like I'm in the shape of my life. Between that and the weight loss, I'm really scratching my head over why my climbing isn't getting any better.

As to how much weight I could afford to lose: it seems like I'm pretty heavy for a competitive cyclist my height, though I only am guessing from eying other racers, what other people say, etc. Of course, it could be that only the skinny guys talk about their weight. With people here telling me I should weigh 135 pounds, it seems like I still have a ways to go 🙂.

Thanks!

If I read your post correctly, you are using a 3.3 mile, 7.2% avg grade hillclimb TT as a key benchmark of your max power. My first observation is that a better benchmark for total power would be a 40K course at your max steady-state power, as used by Andy Coggan as the key determinant of training zones. But, let's return to your hillclimb TT benchmark. If I've run the numbers correctly, you are saying that the "respectable" time for serious cyclists is ~270w avg power (using 78kg total weight -- your weight + 20 lbs for the bike). Your best time was ~247w avg and your most recent effort was ~228w avg. If you regularly pull ~250w for 20+ mins, then I'd say you had a bad day for any of a host of reasons (heat, rest, hard ride the day before, etc.). In fact, most people (me included) actually find it easier to pull a given power on a climb than on the flat. If you find that you consistently have more difficulty pulling a given power number on climbs as compared with the flats, I'd say you need to add more long climb intervals to your training schedule. But, I'll assume you had a bad day and that ~250w is your repeatable average. To raise that to ~270w is, to me, not a question of hillclimbing technique or practice but rather a question of raising your total 20 min power by 20w. A standard regimen of zone based training should enable you to do that.

But, there's a second key issue underlying your question that hasn't been touched on by the other responses: TT pacing strategy. No hill (that I have ever seen) has a constant grade for 3.3 miles. Looked at from a side profile perspective, it consists of many sections of different grades. This raises the question of whether a given cyclist with a given average 20 min power capability can ride the course faster with (a) steady-state power as suggested by frenchyge or (b) variable power. While I'm still working it out analytically myself, it appears that the best strategy for fastest time is a variable power strategy. The essence of this strategy is to increase your power on the steepest sections and ease off to recover on the flattest (relatively) sections. Basically, you try to maintain bike speed in the slowest sections. This specific issue is analyzed by Kraig Willett here.
biketechreview.comsupercomputers.htmOpen ↗

mises said:

Also on a climb of ~20 minutes a lot of non-climbers can muscle their way up at a high intensity so it's really too short to say you whether you are a good "climber", it's more a test of raw power. The Ardennes classics have a lot of 4-5 km climbs that are quite steep but climbers aren't the ones that excel in those races.

This is a good point. The accepted record for this local climb was set by Eric Heiden, who is hardly an Alpine waif.

RapDaddyo said:

This raises the question of whether a given cyclist with a given average 20 min power capability can ride the course faster with (a) steady-state power as suggested by frenchyge or (b) variable power. While I'm still working it out analytically myself, it appears that the best strategy for fastest time is a variable power strategy. The essence of this strategy is to increase your power on the steepest sections and ease off to recover on the flattest (relatively) sections. Basically, you try to maintain bike speed in the slowest sections. This specific issue is analyzed by Kraig Willett here.
biketechreview.comsupercomputers.htmOpen ↗

That's an interesting article, thanks for the link Rap. What the article seem to neglect is the exponentially greater punishment on the body for generating wattages above the average. Dr. Coggan determined the following:
[font=Times New Roman]blood lactate (% of lactate at LT) = power (% of power at LT)^[/font][font=Times New Roman]3.90[/font][font=Times New Roman]; R[/font][font=Times New Roman]2[/font][font=Times New Roman]=0.806, n=76[/font]

[font=Arial][font=Verdana]which he then simplifies to state that the intensity (as perceived by the body) is proportional to the power output raised to the fourth power ( http://www.midweekclub.ca/articles/coggan.pdf ). Since that relationship is a 4th order equation, (even greater than the 3rd order relationship between power and wind resistance) you don't get the same number of "fun tickets" if you start blowing them in handfuls at 400W+. [/font][/font]
[font=Arial][font=Verdana][/font][/font]
[font=Arial][font=Verdana]There's probably still something to the variable power approach, but varying power by 60-80% as the article suggests doesn't sound feasible to me based on the above. His "constant fun ticket" assumption isn't reasonable.[/font][/font]

frenchyge said:

That's an interesting article, thanks for the link Rap. What the article seem to neglect is the exponentially greater punishment on the body for generating wattages above the average. Dr. Coggan determined the following:
[font=Times New Roman]blood lactate (% of lactate at LT) = power (% of power at LT)^[/font][font=Times New Roman]3.90[/font][font=Times New Roman]; R[/font][font=Times New Roman]2[/font][font=Times New Roman]=0.806, n=76[/font]

[font=Arial][font=Verdana]which he then simplifies to state that the intensity (as perceived by the body) is proportional to the power output raised to the fourth power ( http://www.midweekclub.ca/articles/coggan.pdf ). Since that relationship is a 4th order equation, (even greater than the 3rd order relationship between power and wind resistance) you don't get the same number of "fun tickets" if you start blowing them in handfuls at 400W+. [/font][/font]
[font=Arial][font=Verdana][/font][/font]
[font=Arial][font=Verdana]There's probably still something to the variable power approach, but varying power by 60-80% as the article suggests doesn't sound feasible to me based on the above. His "constant fun ticket" assumption isn't reasonable.[/font][/font]

Hi, Greg. BTW, still looking for a ride report on the Triple Bypass. About the variable power pacing strategy, as I said I'm still working it out analytically so that I understand and agree with the conclusions, but I'm not prepared to take on Kraig W and Andy C, who agree that a variable power strategy is optimal for a variable grade TT and that this is what the top TTers do. Rather, I'm just trying to understand how and why it works. My first cut didn't support the conclusion. Specifically, I assumed two sections of this hillclimb course, an 8% grade section followed by a 4% grade section. I assumed that the cyclist has a max 20 min TT power of 270w (the apparent target of the OP), and I varied power by 50w for 2 minutes. IOW, he rides the last 2 mins of the 8% grade at 320w and rides the first 2 mins of the 4% grade at 220w to recover. Under my analysis, he rides the total distance slower under the VP (variable-power) strategy vs. the CP (constant-power) strategy. But, I may be doing it wrong. Paul

squidwranglr said:

The chart with the FT column instead of the 20 min one is the "golden" one, then?

Yup, go by either version 2 or 3 if you're a guy; version 3 only if you're a woman.

squidwranglr said:

Out of curiousity, were the more specific Pro, Cat 1/2/3, etc. labels in the other chart your assignments or added by someone who modified your original table? I wasn't sure as I did not see that version of the chart on the CyclingPeaks site.

No, I'm the one who came up with the original classification labels. I deleted them from version 2, though, since they seemed to distract people from the true purpose of the tables (to evaluate a rider's relative strengths and weaknesses, i.e., compared to themselves).

kmavm said:

I lost the weight recently, and somewhat mysteriously. There was no major increase in training. I may have been slightly more picky about my diet than usual, but not radically so. The first two pounds came over the course of about a month, and then another four came off in the last two weeks.

I don't think I'm sick or overtrained. I feel pretty darned good on the bike these days. Overall, I feel like I'm in the shape of my life.

Regardless of how you feel, I'd say it's quite possible that the weight loss, or whatever may have caused it (e.g., life stressors other than training), may be responsible for your apparent decline in performance ability. I say that based not only on the well-known fact that it is difficult to lose weight w/o losing at least some lean body mass, but also based on personal experience.

RapDaddyo said:

Hi, Greg. BTW, still looking for a ride report on the Triple Bypass.

I did a nice little TB writeup earlier today, but when I tried to attach a photo I lost the whole thing. 😠

RapDaddyo said:

About the variable power pacing strategy, as I said I'm still working it out analytically so that I understand and agree with the conclusions, but I'm not prepared to take on Kraig W and Andy C, who agree that a variable power strategy is optimal for a variable grade TT and that this is what the top TTers do. Rather, I'm just trying to understand how and why it works. My first cut didn't support the conclusion. Specifically, I assumed two sections of this hillclimb course, an 8% grade section followed by a 4% grade section. I assumed that the cyclist has a max 20 min TT power of 270w (the apparent target of the OP), and I varied power by 50w for 2 minutes. IOW, he rides the last 2 mins of the 8% grade at 320w and rides the first 2 mins of the 4% grade at 220w to recover. Under my analysis, he rides the total distance slower under the VP (variable-power) strategy vs. the CP (constant-power) strategy. But, I may be doing it wrong. Paul

The fact that you're trying to work with time at power, rather than slope distance, is probably tripping you up. The times on each slope will be different for each power because of the different speeds. Modifying your example to be a 4km grade (2km at 4% + 2km at 8%), I get 293sec + 477s = 770sec at 270W. Using VP, I get 342s + 409s = 751 seconds at 220W/320W, which certainly supports the VP approach. Of course, since you spend much more *time* at 320W than you do at 220W, your average power using the VP example is really 274.5W rather than 270W. That closes the gap some, but VP still prevails.

My point was that if your 770 sec TT power is 270W max, then that means you can generate 207.9 kJ (fun tickets) during that ride. Because of Coggan's 4th order relationship between power and lactate, you will not be able to generate the same amount of energy in the VP approach. If each kJ generated at 270W equals 1 lactate ticket, then you're generating more lactate during the 320W half of the ride alone then you do by riding the entire distance at 270W. [(320/270)^4 x 320w x 409seconds makes it feel like 275.8 kJ from a lactate perspective]

The entire VP ride generates about 40% more lactate than the CP ride, and in a shorter time period to boot.

Now, if Andy has said that VP is the way to go, then I'll be willing to believe him. However, that doesn't seem to be true from what I understand from his Power Training paper.

frenchyge said:

That's an interesting article, thanks for the link Rap. What the article seem to neglect is the exponentially greater punishment on the body for generating wattages above the average. Dr. Coggan determined the following:
[font=Times New Roman]blood lactate (% of lactate at LT) = power (% of power at LT)^[/font][font=Times New Roman]3.90[/font][font=Times New Roman]; R[/font][font=Times New Roman]2[/font][font=Times New Roman]=0.806, n=76[/font]

[font=Arial][font=Verdana]which he then simplifies to state that the intensity (as perceived by the body) is proportional to the power output raised to the fourth power ( http://www.midweekclub.ca/articles/coggan.pdf ). Since that relationship is a 4th order equation, (even greater than the 3rd order relationship between power and wind resistance) you don't get the same number of "fun tickets" if you start blowing them in handfuls at 400W+. [/font][/font]
[font=Arial][font=Verdana][/font][/font]
[font=Arial][font=Verdana]There's probably still something to the variable power approach, but varying power by 60-80% as the article suggests doesn't sound feasible to me based on the above. His "constant fun ticket" assumption isn't reasonable.[/font][/font]

Unless he's updated the article for some reason, Kraig's analysis does recognize the fact that there is a non-linear relationship between exercise intensity and metabolic strain. It does so because he put in normalized power as an overall constraint, i.e., when iteratively searching for a solution his algorithm doesn't let the normalized power exceed some pre-selected maximum. About the only thing that you might add to try to make the modeling more accurate would be to impose contraints on short-term power as well. For example, the fastest way to ride an otherwise-flat course with a really steep 2 km hill in it is to blast up that sucker as hard as you can, then recover on the following descent. However, unless you included, say, the rider's maximal 4 min power as a constraint along with normalized power, the model may suggest a strategy that is simply impossible for the rider to execute even if they hit that hill when fresh.