climbing question

[QUOTE]Originally posted by matt22
[B]ric,

I've enjoyed reading your input on this thread and on other threads as well. I had thought I needed to be doing some weight training to build my legs but it sounds like all I need to do is ride.
[/quote]

thank you. glad you have hopefully found it useful.

yes, riding is the way to go to improvement (assuming you don't ride e.g., track 200-m, 1-km). however, you will need to train hard (as opposed to just pottering in the lanes, riding your bike!).

Quoted post said:

Back to my original question. I'd like to be competive in these events. Is my current schedule of 4 days of climbing a good one? I've been alternating days with the other 3 days either complete rest days or 30min-1hr of easy recovery rides.

Quoted post said:

One thing I've read is that the best thing I can do to increase climbing speeds is to lose weight, thus increase power to weight ratio. I'm relatively solidly built and am 5'11 and 170. I'd like to get down to 160lbs. Maybe hard for you to say, but what would you consider an ideal weight for my height and build.

Quoted post said:

On my climb days I've been running at 162-164 ave. sustained over 1-2 hours. I believe my Max to be about 185 although I've never seen it above 180 on my bike even after max exertion on really steep grades.

Quoted post said:

From what I understand as I get better I should be my ave. HR drop assuming I'm keeping the same speed. I've been tracking my ave HR, and climb time on these rides to measure my progress.

thanks for your help. [/B]

Seems to me this is one of those cases when nobody is 100%right and the truth lies somewhere in he middle ground.
The area where I live is very hilly and I know of hills that simply make the mind boggle. One of these I'm going to post to you all on this forum soon as I take my camera, scan the pic and upload it on a webpage.
I seriously doubt a non-cyclist could power the peddles of my roadbike to make any dent on the climb. I have pretty strong legs myself but I have real trouble powering the bike under such circumstances, especially in light of the fact my legs have to shift 180 lbs uphill. Sure, I could gear down and fit alpine gears but as things stand I have to rely on power.
Of course, I accept a very small pure climber like Pantani wouldn't need any strength to get up such hills as he weighs so little and his technique is perfect.
You're right about one thing, though, I think. I don't think squats or leg-presses are sufficient to enable a rider to get up such hills (and sustain the effort as you stated). I think that in order to climb you simply have to climb and that as you climb your climbing muscles will develop.
If I opted not to weight-train I wouldn't lose too much sweat over it. I only use weights for specific reasons, such as gaining weight, recuperating from injury, developing overall condition e.t.c.. But if a rider doesn't want to weight-train I have no problems with that either. You can still do power workouts on a bike in a variety of ways. In fact the hardest physical training I have ever done has been a 15 minute power session on the bike (even worse that 30 reps of deep squats).

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ricstern
just to clarify, i'm not a PhD, but i am involved in writing research papers, as lead author.

the opposite is true :-)



right, of course. great cop out



i'm not stopping anyone from doing weights, or anything else. how could i possibly exert such an effect on you remotely.

"rocky2 you are in a deep sleep. when you awaken, you will never weight train again. you will never go near a gym again and you will laugh at people who weight train." erm... right!




i'm backing my suggestion to this board up with facts from peer reviewed research and by using first principles by showing what forces are involved and how anyone (or mostly anyone) can generate these power output. for e.g., we all sit in marvel every july at (name your favourite pro rider) riding up some brute of a mountain pass and think it's great. approximately, they're riding at ~ 400 W for such efforts, which, practically anyone can do. it's *sustaining* that effort for 30,60, whatever, minutes that is the problem, and this is an issue of cardiac output, VO2max, LT, etc., and nothing to do with strength.

what i am trying to do is show that a) in most cases worrying about strength won't be beneficial to your cycling, and b) trying to help cyclists become better cyclists. i'm not trying to make you a worse cyclist!

ric

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carrera
[B]Seems to me this is one of those cases when nobody is 100%right and the truth lies somewhere in he middle ground.
[/quote]

current and past research, the physics of cycling, and using first principles shows that this isn't the case with the exceptions as previously stated. in other words, if you race and/or are race fit for endurance cycle racing then weights won't help except with peak power output (the initial burst of a sprint), however, this will occur at the expense of aerobic performance and a decrease in climbing ability.

Quoted post said:

The area where I live is very hilly and I know of hills that simply make the mind boggle. One of these I'm going to post to you all on this forum soon as I take my camera, scan the pic and upload it on a webpage.

Quoted post said:

Of course, I accept a very small pure climber like Pantani wouldn't need any strength to get up such hills as he weighs so little and his technique is perfect.

I guess we should contact Lance Armstrong and tell him to knock off thoses weight routines he does, he's wasting his time.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by slowhand
I guess we should contact Lance Armstrong and tell him to knock off thoses weight routines he does, he's wasting his time.

just because the pro's may or may not do something doesn't mean it's good or beneficial. some pro's take drugs, are you saying others should too based on the above advice?

ric

Lance has one of the best trainers providing a very specific routine, without this guidance it can be a bad idea.

All i can say is Chris Carmichael must be doing something right, not just with Lance but with some of the other athletes he is training.

===== EXTRACT FROM LA SITE ======
During the racing season, Lance and most other elite endurance athletes lose muscle mass. The extreme energy requirements of a race like the Tour de France, along with the training and racing involved in preparing for it, are nearly impossible to meet completely. Over the course of a long season, the body gradually breaks down muscle tissue to use the protein for energy, cell repair, and immune system maintenance. Strength training helps to rebuild this muscle tissue, as well as the connective tissues (tendons and ligaments) that can also get broken down during the season.

While Lance's weight training program increases his lean body mass a little bit, the benefits of the strength improvements far outweigh the very small amount of lean body mass he gains. In truth, most of the gains he makes in the gym are due to neuromuscular development, as opposed to hypertrophy. Neuromuscular development refers to the nervous system's capacity for recruiting muscle fibers for action, while hypertrophy refers to increasing the size of muscle fibers. This neuromuscular development plays a larger role than hypertrophy in Lance's weight training program because of the amount of time he spends in the gym and the types of exercises he performs.

Since Lance is using weight training as a supplement to his aerobic conditioning program, we place the highest priority on his riding and a lower priority on his weight work. While squats are one of the best exercises available for developing lower body strength and power, I don't use them with Lance because he and I are not willing to take the risks associated with squats. Lance's squatting technique is nearly flawless, but all things considered, he can get the benefits we're looking for, with less associated risk, from a seated leg press. Overall, we focus on powerful multi-joint exercises that recruit the most muscle fiber.

Stability is another, equally important, rationale for Lance's weight program. Cycling is a non-weight-bearing sport, and the legs primarily move in one plane (vertically, but not horizontally). Weight training, along with his cross-training activities from September and October, help ensure that the accessory muscles in Lance's hips, torso, and upper body are developed enough to prevent imbalances and injuries. It is important for highly specialized athletes like cyclists to participate in other sports for some portion of the year in order to keep from becoming fragile. You should be an athlete first, and a cyclist second. This is difficult at the elite level, but it is something the amateur cyclist should take to heart. A pickup game of basketball shouldn't leave you hobbling and sore for days. You work very hard on your endurance and your power, you should be able to use that fitness for more than pedaling a bicycle.

=======END EXTRACT===========

Sure, I believe the Peak District has some pretty tough terrain.
My favourite route is around Buxton. I thought it might be nice to buy myself a very light tent and go camping in the area. The idea would be to pack the tent in a rucksack and then take off on my roadbike - you can buy tents that weight one kilo.
Wales I know very well and it's a terrific place to cycle. I'm pretty sure I could now cycle from Stafforshire to Wales easily and in a short space of time.
Just 3 weeks or so ago I made good headway towards Chester but hope to go all the way to Wales at some point.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ricstern
current and past research, the physics of cycling, and using first principles shows that this isn't the case with the exceptions as previously stated. in other words, if you race and/or are race fit for endurance cycle racing then weights won't help except with peak power output (the initial burst of a sprint), however, this will occur at the expense of aerobic performance and a decrease in climbing ability.



although the area you live has some good hills in it, it's not the hardest place in the UK to cycle by a long way. North and mid-Wales, parts of the Lake District, and Devon and Cornwall are much harder.



for someone to travel at the same velocity as a lighter cyclist they need to have the same power to mass ratio. forces will be higher at the pedal for the heavier cyclist, however, it's likely that the bigger cyclist will be able to generate more power/force than the lighter one. to sustain the same scaled power and the same velocity however, comes down to aerobic power, which is a function of VO2max and LT. it's got *nothing* to do with strength.

ric

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Carrera
Sure, I believe the Peak District has some pretty tough terrain.
My favourite route is around Buxton.

for sure, you have some good climbs around there. Cat and Fiddle is a good one, long, but fairly gentle. Peaslows, short and steep in Chapel en-le Frith, Snake Pass moderate out of Glossop, and hardest climb is probably Winnats Pass in Castleton, which averages 20% from the Blue John Cavern. or venture into Cheshire and climb Swiss Hill which runs parallel to The Wizard (just out of Alderley Edge), and is short, steep and cobbled and about 15%.

still, none of these are as hard as either Wrynose and Hardknotts in the Lakes, which are severe at 33%, or steep and moderately long in the killer which is the Bwlch-y-Groes in north/mid Wales near to Lake Bala.

ric

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by steve007
Lance has one of the best trainers providing a very specific routine, without this guidance it can be a bad idea.

All i can say is Chris Carmichael must be doing something right, not just with Lance but with some of the other athletes he is training.

===== EXTRACT FROM LA SITE ======

(snip)

=======END EXTRACT===========

In case you haven't noticed, much of what Carmichael has to say about why Armstrong lifts is a direct parallel - and presumably a consequence - of all the points that Ric and I have been making about weight training for cyclists for the last few years (e.g., http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/misc/id4.html). IOW, it appears to me that, like any good coach, he has modified his approach based on what he has learned from the scientific literature. To offer his rationale as a counter-argument to Ric's position is therefore hilarious.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ricstern
just because the pro's may or may not do something doesn't mean it's good or beneficial. some pro's take drugs, are you saying others should too based on the above advice?

ric

I think if I had won 5 Tours in a row I'd stick with my training program, how about you? even if it meant using weights to win them. Comparing drug use to weight training is ludicrous and hardly worth a reply but if you want to then I guess it's up to you. I wouldn't use drugs but I guess some people have no problem with it.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by slowhand
I think if I had won 5 Tours in a row I'd stick with my training program, how about you?

"Never copy the training program of a champion, because you don't know if they are a champion because of, or in spite of, their training program." - Anonymous

One or two of the good climbs in Staffordshire take some finding as they're kind of way out West. There's one I recall not being able to do years back but I couldn't relocate it for ages. Then one day I found it by accident. I only just about made it.
These days I'm trying to be a bit more careful since if I overdo the climbing I could risk injury. Yesterday I did a long, winding climb that wasn't particularly steep but great for fitness. I'm standing more than I used to to take stress off my joints and I guess tomorrow I'll be on the flat.
By the way, I suppose you're aware that the top, pure climbers such as Iban Mayo have a tendency to struggle on time trials. In last weeks Cycling Plus I read that there are pure climbers who can sprint away on a very steep 20% section of a road, leaving the bigger guys to struggle. But they seem to suffer on the time trials.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ricstern
for sure, you have some good climbs around there. Cat and Fiddle is a good one, long, but fairly gentle. Peaslows, short and steep in Chapel en-le Frith, Snake Pass moderate out of Glossop, and hardest climb is probably Winnats Pass in Castleton, which averages 20% from the Blue John Cavern. or venture into Cheshire and climb Swiss Hill which runs parallel to The Wizard (just out of Alderley Edge), and is short, steep and cobbled and about 15%.

still, none of these are as hard as either Wrynose and Hardknotts in the Lakes, which are severe at 33%, or steep and moderately long in the killer which is the Bwlch-y-Groes in north/mid Wales near to Lake Bala.

ric

friel recommends a strength maintenance programme in the winter and whilst I can see the argument that the forces required to pedal in endurance cycling are low- what about helping to strengthen the joints and tendons whilst doing base miles?
I agree with the rationale of strengthening these before the onset of hard hill reps, muscular endurance work and sprints.

As long as this gym work is done early winter alongside steady base miles wouldn't it benefit and prepare these structures preceeding the onset of hard "on the bike" training?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by slowhand
I could give a RAT'S ass if anyone agrees with me or not,it worked for me and that's all I care about. It's still the United States and correct me if I'm wrong but I think we still have free speech here. Jeez go take a pill dude............. I 'm headed to the gym

Uh, dude, you mean that you "couldN'T give a rat's ass"...

Anyway, the comments about Armstrong lifting... I don't believe it, even if he says it. I'm certain he doesn't so much as LOOK at a weight for the lower body within 5 months of the TdF.

Now, I don't care whether you lift or not. It just cracks me up how people just believe what they want to believe.

Oh, and the line about stats never telling the truth. Gimme a break. But heck, skip the stats. A little application of IQ will help you realize that lifting won't help. It WILL help you do 20 reps, maybe even 50, or even 100. But it won't help you do 10,000 reps. Test something for yourself... get in your 53-13, and ride uphill. I'll bet you can use that combo up a pretty reasonable grade. See, you have the strength. You can probably even do that for 50, 100, maybe more revolutions (aka reps). Now, you see that the amount of strength required is actually low. It just FEELS high because after a couple hundred of them you are getting tired. You don't need more strength... you need the ability to do more reps. And you definitely wouldn't train by doing fewer heavier reps for that. If you needed to bench press 1000 reps with 25 lbs, would you do heavy sets of 3 reps or would you be working out with ultra high reps? Of course, you'd choose that latter.

Duh.

I can follow the reasoning on the weight lifting argument. However, many results in the real world are not explained by prevailing theory. This is why theories need to be tested.

I bet there have been studies with control groups comparing the effects of weight training compared with abstaining in a cycling program. It would be interesting to see the results.

I would expect, if I follow ricstern's reasoning correctly, that the studies either show no discernable effect or a noticeable decline in performance on climbs after a weight training program unless the cyclist is below about Cat 3 level. And then, who knows which group would improve more--the control group or the weight training group.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Aztec
Uh, dude, you mean that you "couldN'T give a rat's ass"...

Anyway, the comments about Armstrong lifting... I don't believe it, even if he says it. I'm certain he doesn't so much as LOOK at a weight for the lower body within 5 months of the TdF.

Now, I don't care whether you lift or not. It just cracks me up how people just believe what they want to believe.

Oh, and the line about stats never telling the truth. Gimme a break. But heck, skip the stats. A little application of IQ will help you realize that lifting won't help. It WILL help you do 20 reps, maybe even 50, or even 100. But it won't help you do 10,000 reps. Test something for yourself... get in your 53-13, and ride uphill. I'll bet you can use that combo up a pretty reasonable grade. See, you have the strength. You can probably even do that for 50, 100, maybe more revolutions (aka reps). Now, you see that the amount of strength required is actually low. It just FEELS high because after a couple hundred of them you are getting tired. You don't need more strength... you need the ability to do more reps. And you definitely wouldn't train by doing fewer heavier reps for that. If you needed to bench press 1000 reps with 25 lbs, would you do heavy sets of 3 reps or would you be working out with ultra high reps? Of course, you'd choose that latter.
Hey Dude,
You know it's [censored]'s like you that give cycling a bad name, your probally one of those sniveling little [censored] cat 3 riders who prance around like a badass and thinks he knows everything about cycling when in reality he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground! Duh yourself!