Climbing: sit or stand?

[fiamme red]

Interesting advice from Joe Friel (http://www.joefrielsblog.com/2010/08/hills-sit-or-stand.html):

The lower your body mass the more advantageous it is to stand on a climb. The greater your mass the better off you’ll be staying seated. One quick and simple way to come up with your body mass is to divide your weight in pounds (1kg = 2.2lbs) by your height in inches (1cm = 0.4in). So if you weigh 154 pounds (70kg) and you are 72 inches (180cm) tall your “mass” is 2.13 (154 / 72 = 2.13). I’ve found that for males the best climbers are at less than 2.0. These folks should stand a lot (think of Marco Pantani). Men in the range of 2.0 to 2.3 tend to alternate between standing and sitting a lot (for example, Lance Armstrong). Those men at 2.3 to 2.5 are best advised to sit a lot (like Miguel Indurain). Folks over 2.5 usually avoid hills. :D

[sg8357]

Joe is listed as an "endurance athlete". As a tourist I practice
the slow low energy standing climb and the slightly faster
slow low energy sitting climb. Standing requires more lung,
sitting requires more leg, both are good. Silly low gears
and fixed gear climbing practice will help in developing
killer slow climb technique.

[1centaur]

Puts me at 2.13, and I sit and stand. 2.0 and below is a very tough number to hit. 2.5 x 6 feet is 180 pounds. A little low to be avoiding hills, even if you won't be winning TdF HC finishes.

[rugbysecondrow]

I am a 3.1, which explains a lot. Fixed gear riding has helped the long standing/stair stepper climb, but I can sit for a while and do well, but well is relative. I have some good hills where I live, but coming from the flat lands (Illinois) it took some getting used to.

[William]

3.3

I'm a seated climber all the way. Very rarely do I stand, and I climb quite well for some one of my stature.





William

[norcalbiker]

My calculator for some reason is not working. :)

[Charles M]

I think this is misleading...


Saying one body type may benefit from the greater leverage found standing is not the same as saying guys of a certain body type "should stand a lot"...

"A lot" is a relative term and if you're tossing it out there, it may help to quantify it... There are not many body types that are better standing more than sitting over the duration of a climb of any length.

[fiamme red]

There are not many body types that are better standing more than sitting over the duration of a climb of any length.What if the climb is very short and steep (e.g., 0.1 mile at 15%)?

[Ray]

I used to read all of that stuff and I never found it applied. I tend to stand more and more as I get older. Not sure why - maybe because I've learned to do it more efficiently? I used to be a real Lance type (except for the speed part, and the doping part) - really high cadence climbing, mostly seated. Over the years, as I've gained a few pounds, I've found myself standing more and more. It also depends on the climb. Short steep ones I might stand for the whole thing. Long steep ones I almost never stand. Moderate hills of any length I tend to be up and down to use different muscles. Long but gentle hills I tend to stay seated with just an occasional out of saddle stretch. And even these generalities are probably BS depending on the day of the week. I just do what feels right at the moment.

One caveat - I very rarely try to climb fast anymore. I like finding a good rhythm and staying in it and I go as fast or as slow as I go. The quickest way for me to hate climbing is to try to hang with someone who's too fast. If I do it enough, it makes me a stronger climber. But I don't do it enough anymore, so all it does is beat me up and make me hate it. I'm strong enough to have a hell of a lot of fun riding, and even climbing.

-Ray

[Ozz]

... I like finding a good rhythm and staying in it and I go as fast or as slow as I go. The quickest way for me to hate climbing is to try to hang with someone who's too fast. ....
-Ray
+1 but the flip side is also true....trying hang with someone slower is also painful. Your point about finding your rhythm is the key for me.

FWIW - I come in at 2.43 (74" / 180 lbs) and I usually sit for long climbs, but also like to throw in some standing to use different muscles.

[dekindy]

Define "hills". Are we talking quarter-mile 5% grades or 10 mile 10% grades? Over what time period, a 3-week grand tour?

At 6'2" I would have to be 170 lbs to equal 2.3 and 148 lbs to equal 2.0. What it the point of comparing ourselves to pros? I will never do that type of riding ever.

I do agree that at my size it is best to sit and pace myself carefully depending on the hill length and gradient. I have to drive awhile to find "hills" and then they are the short, super steep variety that are really difficult for me since I am a below average athlete with a 2.67 ratio which explains why I am got good at hill climbing.

A good 5-mile, 6% gradient training hill is nonexistent in my part of the country.

[OtayBW]

Seems to me that the heavier ones might actually benefit more from standing because they get a lot of 'purchase' just from shifting their weight over the pedals and 'sinking' down - at least on a shorter hill. This, as opposed to working the glutes and/or quads at high(er) rpm. :banana:....... :confused:

I'm a 2.31 btw (166/72), and I probably do ~70/30 sit/stand just naturally, depending on the terrain, of course. Again, the key is naturally. You tactically knock out a hill based on what you know you can do and what comes naturally.

[SEABREEZE]

Contador mostly standing

SCHLECK mostly seated

[jlyon]

:cool: 3.5

But I'm really fast on the descents.

[William]

+1 but the flip side is also true....trying hang with someone slower is also painful. Your point about finding your rhythm is the key for me.

FWIW - I come in at 2.43 (74" / 180 lbs) and I usually sit for long climbs, but also like to throw in some standing to use different muscles.


I alternate the focus of my pedaling as I climb. For a while I'll focus more on the down stroke, then I'll switch and focus more on the up stroke. Watching me you wouldn't notice a difference. It's very subtle, but it allows me to alternate and hit the muscles differently and go longer without fatiguing. Being my size it was a way that works for me and helps to climb well for my size...of course a smooth pedal stroke and strong power to weight ratio helps. :)





William

[Dekonick]

2.8

I sit most of the time, unless the hill gets over 12%, when I will alternate standing and sitting.

Paul, for a flatlander you do just fine. :beer:

[dogdriver]

2.64.

Bummer, guess I'll keep my day job...

[FlashUNC]

I'm thoroughly of the Ullrich school (even fully adopted his offseason training regimen of donuts and couch time).
But for long climbs I sit and grind it out. I generally only stand when absolutely necessary, either to stretch out a bit, or because it gets really steep. For shorter stuff, even then I'll just try to muscle over it seated.

[witcombusa]

2.6 and wouldn't miss all the dirt climbs @ D2R2 for nuthin'!

(but I do it seated)

[ckamp]

For me to be one of the "best climbers" i would have to weigh 150lbs at my 6foot4 height. Thats just not a good image, I'm already skinny at 172. Time to start starving.

[jbrainin]

For me to be one of the "best climbers" i would have to weigh 150lbs at my 6foot4 height. Thats just not a good image, I'm already skinny at 172. Time to start starving.

Or doping.

[cinema]

Both, I alternate between positions but do stand a lot of the time. That said I always felt like I excel at climbing in general, at 5'19, 140lbs.

[chuckroast]

2.3 and it always hurts the same, whether I sit or stand.

[Ahneida Ride]

3.3
William

that's a typo ..

It's 33000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000 ;)

[Kublai]

As a 2.42 I call the back side of a climb "Fat Man's Revenge". I go up any way I can, then haul a** down the other side....

[Karin Kirk]

2.04
Love to stand and power over the short climbs; alternate on long climbs; definitely prefer standing.
My guess is the ratio would be revised downward for women. The really great women climbers are way tinier than I am. As bike racers go I'm definitely not in the skinny category.
That said, I think this is just a generalization and isn't worth a whole lot of thought.

[fiamme red]

2.04
Love to stand and power over the short climbs; alternate on long climbs; definitely prefer standing.
My guess is the ratio would be revised downward for women. The really great women climbers are way tinier than I am. As bike racers go I'm definitely not in the skinny category.
That said, I think this is just a generalization and isn't worth a whole lot of thought.Friel goes on to say: "Women should use a scale which is about 0.2 lbs/in less (for example, under 1.8 are climbers)."

[weisan]

I have always known that one hundred and forty pounds is the "magic number" that will transform me into Pantani 2.0. And I actually hit that mark when I turned 10, since then I never looked back. :D :banana: :beer:

[Louis]

that's a typo ..

It's 33000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000 ;)

A while back I heard a radio ad for a bank boasting of high interest rates for depositors. I don't remember the numbers exactly, but you'll get the gist of it:

They said "Our interest rate is two point ten percent" meaning of course 2.10% which presumably is better than "two point one percent" since ten is higher than one.

I then wondered why they didn't instead advertise "two point a billion percent." That would have been ever better...

[allegretto]

Lb/in = Mass

I must have missed that in Physics class...

[fiamme red]

Lb/in = Mass

I must have missed that in Physics class...Not mass in the physics sense, but in the body measurement sense, like BMI.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index

[allegretto]

I know, it's a functional index, not a true basic unit of measure. I was just having fun...

[weiwentg]

1.9 with short legs. Sit most of the time.

[gasman]

Lb/in = Mass

I must have missed that in Physics class...

I was wondering the same thing but I think he's trying to do a simplified bmi typecalculation.
Still it's too dang generalized to be of any real value.

[Onno]

2.0

Give me a carbon bike, please.

[Bob Loblaw]

When I was a junior just starting out, I climbed standing up till my training partner and coach both told me I was doing it wrong. I learned to climb sitting. I was slower, but my training partner and coach told me I just needed to practice it and get better at it. Practice I did, get better I did. Still slower than standing though.

Then they told me I needed to spin up the hills. This also slowed me down, but again they said I just needed to learn how to do it. I re-geared my bike and practiced. I got better at it and faster. Still, I was slower up my pet climb than I had been when I was pushing a heavy gear, which was slower again than I had been out of the saddle.

I trained hard on my pet climb, a seven mile 2000 foot ascent in the Santa Cruz Mountains, but I never equalled my PR again once I started doing what everyone else told me to do. Never came within three minutes of it again, actually. I figured I was doing something wrong, overtraining or something. Maybe I was.

24 years and 40 lbs later, I climb how I want. I climb out of the saddle when I want to go fast, in the saddle when I don't need to. It works for me.

BL

[TimmyB]

1.875

I think I won? 6ft. 135. Ya, I like climbing hills. As for seated vs standing... well it depends on what training I have that day! In general terms though... I'll be out of the saddle if I'm going fast and/or the climb's short (<5 min). I'm usually seated if I'm doing base and/or the climb's really long. Alternating between both works well too...

[tv_vt]

Pretty much the same as Ozz: 6'2" (74"), 178 pounds puts me around 2.4. And I do usually climb seated, unless it's short and steep, or long enough to mix it up. No wonder I always liked Indurain...

Hey Timmy B, are you in high school, by any chance? I was current height and 135 pounds my freshman and sophmore years. Too bad I couldn't afford a road bike back then. 'Course you couldn't find a hill in Chicago suburbs, anyway, so it didn't matter.

[Louis]

Hey Timmy B, are you in high school, by any chance?

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=812179&postcount=183

[johnnymossville]

yes.

[TimmyB]

Hey Timmy B, are you in high school, by any chance? I was current height and 135 pounds my freshman and sophmore years. Too bad I couldn't afford a road bike back then. 'Course you couldn't find a hill in Chicago suburbs, anyway, so it didn't matter.
No sir, I am a college student. I'm about to start my sophomore year at UC Berkeley. As for affording bikes... Lets just say it's a good thing I've had at least one job since I was 13 :beer:

[firerescuefin]

No sir, I am a college student. I'm about to start my sophomore year at UC Berkeley. As for affording bikes... Lets just say it's a good thing I've had at least one job since I was 13 :beer:


You damn kids...got nothing better to do than go to class, ride bikes (in your case a lot), hit on hot coeds, drink beer, and make friends.

If I sound jealous...I am. Enjoy this season while it lasts. The next one will come soon enough :beer: