Rolling terrain vs. flats and steep gradients

[sellsworth]

I’m continually intrigued by the differences among my riding buddies in regards to abilities on different terrain.

Here’s what I’ve been pondering. My clear strength over my buddies is on rolling terrain where I can power up the short climbs and then recover before the next climb. I can sprint up a short climb very fast as long as my heart rate isn’t too high. However on the longer climbs (especially steep ones) and on the flats I fall behind. I’m strong at first and then fade beyond 20 minutes or so of effort. It seems that when I maintain a high heart rate for an extended period I tire more quickly than my buddies. What is the physiological or technical explanation for these differences? It could be that I’m just a fast-twitch kind of guy with inefficient mitochondria. Or are there other possibilities?

[SMUGator]

Figure out your HR zones based on your favorite coach for the masses (Carmichael or Friel – both use different zones with the same names) and use that for simulating “hill” training. If you have access to power data all the better, use that instead.

To get better at hills you simply need to develop your aerobic capacity, especially for long climbs – you can’t climb them anearobically – you can, but not for long no matter how motivated you might be. The key is to climb under your threshold (we could argue the meaning of LT/AT, etc. for a lot of days) so that you stay completely aerobic. If you aren’t currently able to climb hills below your threshold then you don’t want to go “hill train” to get better at climbing them. I believe this is a huge misconception that most cyclist have, including a lot of racers.



You build your aerobic capacity by training under your threshold, by doing tempo work and steady state style intervals. I’m not advocating a plan here per se, but I’ve spent a lot more time developing my aerobic capacity this year beneath my threshold both on the trainer and outside, but not on hills. I am finding I am able to climb hills at a much lower HR these days as a result. It seems counterintuitive, but it works.

[Sandy]

I was recently riding on a flat stretch, with a little downhill bias, when another much younger cyclist blew by me. I gave chase and caught him. For several miles we were riding relatively close, but when I pushed, I could pass him, and when he pushed, he really could not pass me. At a short reasonably steep hill, I was riding a little behind him, and by the time we got to the top of this little hill, he was gone, and I had to really work to catch up, but once I did, I knew that I could "motor" past him, which I did. At the end of the stretch he was complimenting me for my "strength" and "power", for someone my age. I told him that I am ok on the flats, for my age, but that he just rode away from me up the hills. He just simply stated that you are over 200 pounds (so that should be expected).

I was riding with Dan L and some other faster riders a week ago, and I was simply unable to keep up on repeated rollers (not necessarily steep) and on steep hills, no matter how short. They pulverized me. Once I got back to flat terrrain, I felt much stronger and could do somewhat better. I think that the repeated rollers and the repeated steep hills simply collectively took a toll on my legs and did not allow me to recuperate fast enough until I got to the flats. Repeated climbs on steeper hills simply left me waaaay behind, and totally discouraged.

I think that cyclists simply to have strengths and weaknesses in certain areas, just like other athletes. I KNOW that all the cyclists I rode with on my ride with Dan L could drop me on the hills, very quickly and totally. But on the flats and in a sprint, I don't think that would be the case at all. If we had a short "sprint" race, I think that I do reasonably well with them. But in a "race" up the hills, I would be simply destroyed by all of them, with guys like Dan L, having the ability to simply ride away rather quickly.

I rode with a much slower group a few days after I rode with Dan, and I was much stronger, and could climb hills somewhat better. I believe the reason was simply because at the lower speeds, the cumulative effect of pushing and trying to keep up on the hills or repeated rollers was not nearly as effective in wearing down my muscular reserve. I normally don't have a real problem with breathing, even up steep hills, but I don't have sufficient muscular endurance, possibly relating to age, heredity, weight, or simply technique. I tend to ride in spurts which is not very efficient.

Perhaps what I have said is not very meaningful relative to what you were asking about. I don't know.

I have found that some cyclists tend to simply be good at everthing whereas others are simply good at some aspects, and not so good at others.

Not too good at any,

Sandy

[Ken Robb]

Sandy sounds like me.

[Marron]

This question always takes me back to my career (ha!) as a high school runner. In such an finely disaggregated sport, you quickly gravitate to what you're best at and stick with it. Genetics was definitely destiny in this arena. The coach wants to win meets so he deploys the talent he's got against the job at hand.

The one place were we all came together was running cross country in the fall. That's were you could observe the different abilities playing out against the terrain; who tired on hills quickly, who could get to the hole shot right after the start. It was interesting, but not something you would use to shape preparation for the rest of your season which was focused on your speciality, middle distance in my case.

Road Racing is akin to cross country because it's more of a pack sport and you have cover all kinds of terrain. It's also most like casual cycling. So if you're training with any kind of a plan you're training mostly to your weaknesses. If there were a thousand velodromes in the US I wonder how many of us would chose the track because that's what we're inherehntly good at?

[Skrawny]

I'm the other guy...

I am all about the looong hills.
I am a flyweight spinner without much immediate power; I rely heavily on my cardiovascular system. I try to keep up with the big guys in the flats or short "sprints" up rollers and just wait for a long hill where I can sit a beat or two under my LH threshold and gain a little respect. Gusty headwinds are my nemesis; my hollow bones and lack of power means all I can do is draft off of a big back. Kinda' annoys the big guys though, when I wheelsuck for a while and then drop'em in the hills... :no:

The best thing recently that has happened to my cycling was that I got a bike with a dual ring and a 25 cog in the back. I had to work hard on my power to get to a point where I could spin at a comfortable cadence on the hills in this area (still working on it), but now I feel I am really moving up the hills.
-s

[RichMc]

This is very close to home for me also. I have been trying to figure this out for over a year now in respect to both what is happening and what to do about it.

As near as I can tell what is happening is this. On the flats and easy, short rollers we are running along at near to the limit of our aerobic threshold. Once we get on that hill we get to the limit of our aerobic threashold and may even go past it into anaerobic. This burns out the remaining energy that we have and forces us into the big slowdown so that our system can recover. I don't think this is exactly lactate threashold as I don't feel the "muscle burn" but rather just run out of gas. The more often this limit is hit and passed the less power we have on the next big hill.

I'm willing to bet that if we measured Sandy (or any other of us in this situation) that he would be running closer to the limit of his aerobic capability than the other guys he's comparing himself to. Want to test this out? Go race with them when they are really trying and you might find a world of difference between that and a normal ride. The guys that don't seem so fast on the flats may be just conserving themselves a little more because they know there is a hill coming. They sure aren't running at close to their aerobic limit and then going anerobic up those long hills. I think even the best conditioned athletes can only sustain a short time in an anaerobic state. It's just that their threashold is so much higher than the average guy. Look at Boonen. You can't tell me that these guy's aren't pushing their aerobic limits to stay at the front of Paris-Roubaix and then take off in a mad sprint at the end.

So the gist is to increase the upper limit of sustained aerobic effort, both in heartrate and time in the effort. I think that is where a carefully crafted plan of interval training and other aerobic training will pay off to get up the hills faster and longer.

To ride fast you have to ride faster. That's not zen doubletalk. You have to explore your limits and then train properly to increase them. That's not always comfortable or quick to do. Training, diet & nutrition all add up.

[Skrawny]

I agree with you, RichMC.
My only addition would be that although I *MAY* have a higher aerobic capacity, you big guys have more muscle mass/are stronger. That means on the rollers or in sprints when things get anaerobic you can put down more wattage than me.

-s

[RichMc]

Scrawny -

You sure aren't talking to me when you are talking about an advantage in sprints. I suck at sprinting. I understand, and I certainly may be mistaken, that anaerobic efforts for anyone only can last around a minute. If someone is sprinting away, and isn't going anaerobic, then watch out 'cause he be puttin' some hurt on you. I, too, can only suffer and watch them go. :crap:

[Climb01742]

what's been eye-opening to me on my coach-crafted training plan is: the difference between how i ride during the intervals sections of the workout (hard) and during the warm-up, rest sections and cool down (noticeably easier). before, i'd try to ride pretty hard pretty much all the time. a sort of steady-state sorta hard. now there's a much greater peak and valley to my riding. which i think will, over time, really pay off. you gotta really push and really recover. which i wasn't, and as a result, i don't think i was progressing. as rich said, intervals, baby, intervals.

[Sandy]

Old man Sandy says it a little different- Baby intervals, baby intervals, long recovery,.....

Big Baby

[Climb01742]

another thing to consider perhaps, soon slender sandy, is that training while losing weight can be very tough some days. the energy just won't be there. i'm trying to drop a few pounds too. some days i feel great. but some days i'm just pooped. it takes the body a while to adjust to a lower weight and reduced cals. so maybe cut yourself some slack, not be too hard on yourself. hey, that's our job! ;)

[dirtdigger88]

I have followed the Freil books for some time- he is big on your rest days being very easy and your work days being gut busting hard- I use to be the spinner flying up the hills and getting killed on the flats- but with my new position I am much stronger on the flat in power type riding- I have not done a lot of hill work as of yet- but I feel just as strong on the hills when I need to be- I just slide to the nose of the saddle and spin my brains out

Jason

[hypnospin]

some generalities i can offer,
power to weight ratio is a factor here, as there is a point at which the length and steepness of the grade favors the lighter guy with more power to weight than the heavier guy with higher output. below that, the higher output guy can stomp and no one can respond wether they want to or not...
it has been reccomended to train your weaknesses and race your strengths. even if your race is a group ride, you can work on longer duration exertions.
one thing i have found, being a rider simular to what you describe, is training for endurance will allow me to have more left in the tank on longer rides with my buds. sometimes i will then have a late-in-the-ride advantage and keep feeling better as the miles pile on.
while i advocate overall power and weight training for the cyclist, i also have found an advantage with losing some muscle mass over time (resulting from more riding less lifting)
the reason for this was described by a local champ who offered, in regards to muscle mass beyond a certain point, "you gotta oxygenate that @hit"


I’m continually intrigued by the differences among my riding buddies in regards to abilities on different terrain.

Here’s what I’ve been pondering. My clear strength over my buddies is on rolling terrain where I can power up the short climbs and then recover before the next climb. I can sprint up a short climb very fast as long as my heart rate isn’t too high. However on the longer climbs (especially steep ones) and on the flats I fall behind. I’m strong at first and then fade beyond 20 minutes or so of effort. It seems that when I maintain a high heart rate for an extended period I tire more quickly than my buddies. What is the physiological or technical explanation for these differences? It could be that I’m just a fast-twitch kind of guy with inefficient mitochondria. Or are there other possibilities?