Fifty Plus (50+) - need to improve my hill climbing this year!!

I put 4900 miles on my bike last year. But I always get kill going up hills. I know that I don't have the body type for hill climbing. I am 5'6" and 185. I have 21% body fat. I know I need to lose some weight. I did weigh 170 in college in the off season of wrestling. I start the hill in a lower gear. I do seem to lose my form as my heart rate goes up. I am 55 and when my heart rate hits 160 I get anaerobic. I spin at 85 to 70 rpm going up hills. Here is an example 1 mile hill 250ft of climbing. I have 11 to 12 mph while my group ave 14mph. The rest of the ride I am with my group. Do any of you have any good suggestions so I can climb hills faster? thanks.

I'm from Chicago and just moved to Connecticut. Between where I live now and where my in-laws live in Vermont, I now get hills a plenty. And I suck at climbing them too.

I do suck less now because, while I hate hills with a passion, I keep on climbing them. Climbing them when I ride alone, when I ride with friends, when I'm pulling trailers (and then they really suck).

Are you geared low enough? Standing helps in that you are switching which muscles you are using but is actually less efficient than sitting and spinning (this is why you'll see a lot of the pros switch back and forth).

Besides that, anything that improves your cardio should help you spin up the hill faster.

And, no conversation about how to improve hills would be complete without Eddie:

"Don't buy upgrades, ride up grades."

Good luck, Charles

"Don't buy upgrades, ride up grades."

The Master has spoken, way cool zen thing Indeed.


I like that, I resist al kinds of toys and gadgetry. but I also suck at hills mainly because Im a flatlander.

On a hill that slows me down most of you guys wouldn't even drop a gear....

Hills suck. There is just no denying that fact.

When folks come to me to get help with archery we'll sit down for a while and talk. To the person ALL(!) of them practice what they are good at. I'd say that 99% of them would just stand there at 20 yds and pound arrow after arrow into the target... because they are good at it. To get them to move to 50 yds or further is like pulling teeth out of a chicken.

The moral of the story is; Don't practice what you are good at. Not a lot of point to that.

If you suck at hills go ride hills.

You're right about the weight. Once you are in pretty good shape your weight is the limiting factor. All of the riders I have seen who make big improvements in climbing have done so with weight loss. It's all about the watts per kilogram.
I'm over 200# and I always do lots of climbing. All of my friends who ride a lot can drop me on the climbs but I can pass the people who don't climb a lot and it surprises them.

Hills suck. There is just no denying that fact.
The moral of the story is; Don't practice what you are good at. Not a lot of point to that.
If you suck at hills go ride hills.

Actually, if I may have the opposite voice, I love climbing! Here is the ride we did Sat. http://connect.garmin.com/activity/263874964

And that one was lots of fun! I even made it a bikeforums ride for the locals. Out here we have lots of long climbs; they can last for a couple of hours sometimes, so you get to be good at climbing when you live out here. In 2012 I rode a tad over 8,000 miles with 540,000 feet of climbing.

The most I've climbed in one day was on the Mt. Shasta double-metric century, and that was 16,500 feet, so lots of fun on that one. I am not particularly light at 160 lbs. and 5'9" and I know lots of heavier riders who do just fine on climbs.

The more you climb, the better you'll like it!

Rick / OCRR

. . . . I love climbing! . . . .

I think even those of us who riders like Rick might pass as if we were gasping at the side of the road can benefit from this attitude.

We humans have considerable powers of self-deception. Convincing ourselves that hills are our friends leads to more practice on upgrades and thus improved climbing and overall fitness. And, with a little eating restraint, those upgrades help us get back to college weight.

I love climbing because it allows for concentrated effort.

The more i ride the more i enjoy hills. It also helps me with motivation for weight loss. Just don't have enough hills in my area.

I love climbing!


Y'all are sick. :P

But since we're all giving the same advice, I s'pose I can't complain too much... :)

Actually, if I may have the opposite voice, I love climbing! Here is the ride we did Sat. http://connect.garmin.com/activity/263874964

And that one was lots of fun! I even made it a bikeforums ride for the locals. Out here we have lots of long climbs; they can last for a couple of hours sometimes, so you get to be good at climbing when you live out here. In 2012 I rode a tad over 8,000 miles with 540,000 feet of climbing.

The most I've climbed in one day was on the Mt. Shasta double-metric century, and that was 16,500 feet, so lots of fun on that one. I am not particularly light at 160 lbs. and 5'9" and I know lots of heavier riders who do just fine on climbs.

The more you climb, the better you'll like it!

Rick / OCRR


I'm with you, Rick.

I honestly don't think I'd ride a bike at all if it weren't for hills. It would be ... I dunno ... boring. It's a lot easier to chat people up when you're going uphill and you can see and smell more. And when you get to the top, you get a great view, a feeling of accomplishment and have a great downhill in front of you.

I think the key is to just stop fretting about how long it takes you to get up the hill. Get the appropriate gearing and get at it. Go at a speed that for you, is brisk, but not utterly exhausting.

PS: Nice to see you Saturday, Big John!

So much of what has been said here resonates with me. I live in northeastern CT and it is surprising how hilly it can be. And, at 5'9" and 185 lbs I am near my college football weight but at age 66 nowhere near as strong or fast as I used to be. (Probably didn't have to say that to this group). Last season I changed to a compact crankset and that actually helped but getting down to 170 lbs would be even better I'm guessing. I only ride about 2,000 mi. a season so I'm thinking more miles would help too.

If you suck at hills go ride hills.

+1

Lose weight. It's the only answer. If you weigh more than 2.5 lbs per inch of height you aren't going to climb as well as you might. End of story. At 6'3" I should be under 185 lbs. I'm not - yet. As a result, I don't climb well. It's that simple.

Lose weight. It's the only answer. If you weigh more than 2.5 lbs per inch of height you aren't going to climb as well as you might. End of story. At 6'3" I should be under 185 lbs. I'm not - yet. As a result, I don't climb well. It's that simple.

This is good advice of course. But, at 5'10" after basic training in 1969 (Ft. Jackson) I was in great shape and weighed 178 lbs. Not quite down to the magical 2.5 lbs per inch but close. Now I'd have to get down to 172.5 lbs and I'm not sure that's possible for me. Remains to be seen this season.

This is the single best article I've read on hill climbing and is worth the read. Jonathan Vaughters is the author: http://theclimb.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/ready-to-edit-and-post-expert-advice-from-jonathan-vaughters/

Lose weight. It's the only answer. If you weigh more than 2.5 lbs per inch of height you aren't going to climb as well as you might. End of story. At 6'3" I should be under 185 lbs. I'm not - yet. As a result, I don't climb well. It's that simple.

Thanks My goal is to lose weight!!

I am thinking it is very hard to give meaningful advice here because there are just SO many variables it becomes a very individualized thing:
Leg strength
Pulmonary function
Cardio Function
Vascular Function
Metabolic Function
Weight of the equipment
Weight of the rider
Equipment efficiency
Gearing
Tire size
Tire tread
Tire TPI
Tire inflation pressure
Type of hill (short & steep vs long & gradual)
Type of turf (Paved, limestone, hard pack, soft, muddy, snowy, etc...)

... Even emotional factors enter into it: Confidence, Aggressiveness, etc...

So, to the OP: What do YOU think the problem(s) is/are?

Some good points have been made already. But if you're serious about improving climbing, two other things can help. One is to increase leg strength by off-the-bike weight training. The other is to spend some time riding in the big gears (ride in the big ring), even when you're not on the hills. This, too, can help strengthen the leg muscles.

I was looking at the comment section of the Vaughters article and found one that will resonate with most people on this thread:

The key to climbing is weight. I ride the “hills” in California where we have a few good grades also, some go to 22% like Sonora Pass. But I will be puffing along and some 95 pound 22 year old female will just fly right by me. It does not help that I am 74 and about 10 pounds overweight either, so it also helps to be young. All this business about breathing right and suffering is for you old people. The key is to be in your early 20s, about 5’8″ and weigh about 100 pounds.

I put 4900 miles on my bike last year. But I always get kill going up hills. I know that I don't have the body type for hill climbing. I am 5'6" and 185. I have 21% body fat. I know I need to lose some weight. I did weigh 170 in college in the off season of wrestling. I start the hill in a lower gear. I do seem to lose my form as my heart rate goes up. I am 55 and when my heart rate hits 160 I get anaerobic. I spin at 85 to 70 rpm going up hills. Here is an example 1 mile hill 250ft of climbing. I have 11 to 12 mph while my group ave 14mph. The rest of the ride I am with my group. Do any of you have any good suggestions so I can climb hills faster? thanks.

You are doing better than "most" riders.

250 feet per mile is a 4.7% grade. The kreuzotter.de bike calculator (http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm) says that's 250 watts at 11 mph and 185 lbs.

At 14 mph, its 350 watts. That's a big power increase. If you only weighed 155 lbs, it would still be 300 watts.

The 11 mph speed is about what I would do on that climb.

Trying to keep up with the rest of my group on climbs is my best hillclimbing exercise. I don't push nearly as hard on my own.

I do much better on familiar hills. I know how hard I can go on those.

Riders lose the most time on the steepest parts of the climb. Push a little harder there, and recover on the flatter sections.

I am thinking it is very hard to give meaningful advice here because there are just SO many variables it becomes a very individualized thing:
Leg strength
Pulmonary function
Cardio Function
Vascular Function
Metabolic Function
Weight of the equipment
Weight of the rider
Equipment efficiency
Gearing
Tire size
Tire tread
Tire TPI
Tire inflation pressure
Type of hill (short & steep vs long & gradual)
Type of turf (Paved, limestone, hard pack, soft, muddy, snowy, etc...)

... Even emotional factors enter into it: Confidence, Aggressiveness, etc...

So, to the OP: What do YOU think the problem(s) is/are?

I have a Carbon q Klein, I put new components on it last year. ultegra My bike weighs 17.5 now. I think it is my weight and cardio function. I had bypass in 2009. I have 14,000 miles on my bike since my bypass. Weight is the biggest thing!!

One other bit of advice (which is working pretty well for me)...

Find a hill that is 'hard but not too hard' - at first for me this was just a half mile or so at 4% - do some repeats. Once that climb starts to feel easier, pick a new harder hill
(say 1 mile at 6+%)... eventually you'll get to where nothing can stand in your way.

Spending time in bigger gears on flats will help, but nothing improves your climbing like climbing.

kreuzotter.de bike calculator (http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm)

Whoa. Nice link!

I have a Carbon q Klein, I put new components on it last year. ultegra My bike weighs 17.5 now. I think it is my weight and cardio function. I had bypass in 2009. I have 14,000 miles on my bike since my bypass. Weight is the biggest thing!!

Brings to mind a (very bad) joke from my childhood:
>>> Do you know the quickest way to lose 10 pounds of ugly fat?

But most people don't choose that route.

I'm thinking you have already worked pretty hard on weight loss - at least from the burning it off perspective...

Maybe working the cardio/pulmonary side?
... But I'm not sure what the best way to develop that is. Maybe sprints / short bursts of high output. Or maybe some running/jogging?

On the other hand, losing 10 pounds wouldn't hurt either -- but you might have to starve it off. And most people fail at that over the long haul. And besides, I would rather focus on something positive (like building cardio/pulmonary capacity) rather than something negative like starving off body mass.

Have you checked with the cardiologist on his thoughts about your cardiopulmonary efficiency and ability to improve?

A good measure of hill climbing is VAM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_ascent_velocity) (velocità ascensionale media, vertical meters per hour). It makes different grades comparable. Strava.com shows the VAM score for all it's hill climbs. (The VAM score tends to be higher on short, steep climbs.)

Your 250 per mile * 11 miles per hour = 2750 feet per hour /3.28 = 838 VAM. That's very good. I average about 650 (around 2100-2200 feet per hour) for long climbs.

And 250 * 14 mph = 1066 VAM That's comparable to the top 10 riders out of 200 on the local 4% / 1 mile climb. You have some fast co-riders!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From more than one comment above:

"Hills suck"

I like hills. I'm not fast, but I really like rides with hills. Short and steep 15% for 100 feet of elevation, or 5-9% and 1 mile long, or long Blue Ridge Parkway climbs. It's all good.

( I do have a 34-29 low gear. That really helps.)

This:

I'm with you, Rick.

I honestly don't think I'd ride a bike at all if it weren't for hills. It would be ... I dunno ... boring. It's a lot easier to chat people up when you're going uphill and you can see and smell more. And when you get to the top, you get a great view, a feeling of accomplishment and have a great downhill in front of you.

...

Some good points have been made already. But if you're serious about improving climbing, two other things can help. One is to increase leg strength by off-the-bike weight training. The other is to spend some time riding in the big gears (ride in the big ring), even when you're not on the hills. This, too, can help strengthen the leg muscles.

I agree. The best results I've experienced came when I started doing most (all) of my training on a singlespeed. I found a training route (30 mi) where hills come at the end and I have to stand up and really charge on the singlespeed to avoid bogging down into a VERY slow slog. You end up really banging those leg muscles on climbs and you also get used to high cadence on the downhills. I started loving hills when I started trying to do them out of the saddle in a big gear.

As everyone says, there's no shortcut to building your hill-climbing ability. You simply have to ride more hills, more often.

I'm guessing that the trouble with Cleveland is the same as the trouble with Rochester, WRT to climbing. With the city built on the ancient lake bed, there aren't a lot of hills to work with.

The longest and highest hill I have nearby is only a half-mile and 150 feet. Fortunately it's a nice hill and there's a little-traveled residential street on it that I use for repeats.

Repeats are key, I've found. Just keep riding up, back down, and up again until boredom sets in. Then find another hill and do the same.

There's a chain of hills--glacial moraines--along the southern border of town. I commute along the chain of them twice weekly in the three-seasons, and as often as practical in the winter.

When I'm training for a hilly ride, I start at one end and ride repeats of all the hills to the other end, then turn around and ride repeats back to the beginning. By doing only two or three repeats before moving on to the next hill, it keeps the boredom level down. Plus the profile of each hill is different, so I get different types of training--sit and spin, to stand and grind.

Using just the little speed bumps we have for hills here in town, I'm able to successfully train for a century south of here in the Finger Lakes that boasts 11,000 feet of climbing.

Actually, if I may have the opposite voice, I love climbing! Here is the ride we did Sat. http://connect.garmin.com/activity/263874964

And that one was lots of fun! I even made it a bikeforums ride for the locals. Out here we have lots of long climbs; they can last for a couple of hours sometimes, so you get to be good at climbing when you live out here. In 2012 I rode a tad over 8,000 miles with 540,000 feet of climbing.

The most I've climbed in one day was on the Mt. Shasta double-metric century, and that was 16,500 feet, so lots of fun on that one. I am not particularly light at 160 lbs. and 5'9" and I know lots of heavier riders who do just fine on climbs.

The more you climb, the better you'll like it!

Rick / OCRR

I'm sure if I was only(!) 160# I'd enjoy it more than I do now.
I do know I enjoy climbing a wee bit better than I did 80# ago.

Doesn't mean that hills don't suck. It's the suck that you have to embrace as Paisan says.
That said, I just came back from a hill repeats session that was a total of 7.9 miles and 1300'. A necessary evil.

Lose weight. It's the only answer. If you weigh more than 2.5 lbs per inch of height you aren't going to climb as well as you might. End of story. At 6'3" I should be under 185 lbs. I'm not - yet. As a result, I don't climb well. It's that simple.

Losing weight is good advice. Advice that I need to follow. But your numbers per inch are somewhat, well, insane (at least for the population at large). :)

At 6'1", I should get myself down to about 200 lbs assuming I don't put on more muscle. If I do put on more muscle, then the 200 number is probably low. The personal trainer in my building weighs 205 and is 5'8" tall. Yes, according to BMI, he's obese. I love obese people with well under 10% body fat. (BMI is, well, to put it succinctly, stupid for anybody who moves.)

This is the single best article I've read on hill climbing and is worth the read. Jonathan Vaughters is the author: http://theclimb.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/ready-to-edit-and-post-expert-advice-from-jonathan-vaughters/

Excellent. Thanks.

About that excess weight--One of the best climbers I know is around 40lbs overweight so I don't regard that as a problem.

Practice makes perfect but some of us suck on hills--well at least the first one. For me that is when everyone disappears into the distance leaving me to climb at my own pace. By the third I generally have a couple of them drop back to keep me company and by the 4th- there is always someone having a mechanical that necessitates stopping the bike to correct.

I may have problems in that I cannot climb as fast as the others but I cannot remember the last time I walked a hill- although I did try to on the spinning session this morning-That was tough.

Hills are a combination of your power-to-weight ratio and your determination. Riding a lot of hills will improve both, especially mixing in some strength work by over-gearing.

I'm not great at climbing, but when I was selecting the crankset for my latest (and probably last) roadbike, I definitely gave a lot of thought as to whether I should go double or triple chainring(s). Based on my age, I had just turned 65, I decided that I wasn't about to get any stronger, so I went triple. I have never regretted that choice. I use that low gear plenty of times when climbing. I don't ride with any groups, so I don't feel that kind of pressure, but at 70, I still look forward to the challenge of a good climb.

TSAPP

Another suck on hills guy here. 62 and only been road cycling for 5 months and have improved tremendously in both strength and endurance in that short time. I'm 5'11, 148# so have to disagree with the folks who say it's all about weight. I've lost about 8# since starting this endeavor and have no desire to lose any more. Where I do need the most improvement is in my lung capacity. I've always been somewhat poor there,love to snorkel but could never hold my breath even close to as long as some of my swim buddies who swim most every day. I know my legs need work too. I don't have any measuring devices such as HRM or cadence so have to go on how I feel.
I do have a question regarding the gearing on my bike. It's a steel frame with triple up front and 12-25 on back, 9 sp ultegra. It gives me 30/25 for my granny but have looked at going up to a 12-27 for a bit more help. I've held off though thinking I'd be better served staying with the gearing I've got making it part of my training. I do have another bike with Sram apex which gives me 34/32 for a nice low granny but I'm much happier on my steel framed steed.We do have plenty of steep long hills but once again with no measuring devices I have no idea of actual hill steepness%.

I am thinking it is very hard to give meaningful advice here because there are just SO many variables it becomes a very individualized thing:
Leg strength
Pulmonary function
Cardio Function
Vascular Function
Metabolic Function
Weight of the equipment
Weight of the rider
Equipment efficiency
Gearing
Tire size
Tire tread
Tire TPI
Tire inflation pressure
Type of hill (short & steep vs long & gradual)
Type of turf (Paved, limestone, hard pack, soft, muddy, snowy, etc...)

... Even emotional factors enter into it: Confidence, Aggressiveness, etc...

So, to the OP: What do YOU think the problem(s) is/are?


Yeah Lots to factor In,, But I think you missed a few very important factors like,

Pain threashold, Mainly the ability to withstand pain and to know when to stop to avoid real Injury...
Attitude,
Mental drive like,, How bad do you want that hill behind you ! I guess this one could fall under confidence,,,

Losing weight is good advice. Advice that I need to follow. But your numbers per inch are somewhat, well, insane (at least for the population at large). :)

At 6'1", I should get myself down to about 200 lbs assuming I don't put on more muscle. If I do put on more muscle, then the 200 number is probably low. The personal trainer in my building weighs 205 and is 5'8" tall. Yes, according to BMI, he's obese. I love obese people with well under 10% body fat. (BMI is, well, to put it succinctly, stupid for anybody who moves.)

The population at large aren't much good at climbing hills on a bike. If you want to be a grimpeur, having a BMI like the population at large simply isn't going to cut it.

There is nothing insane about the figures I quoted. When I was genuinely fit, in my late twenties, I weighed 180 - 185 at 6'3", and I was a reasonably muscular specimen. Linford Christie, who won an Olympic gold at the 100 meters, is my height and competed at 175 lbs; and he had muscles where I don't even have imagination.

Yes, there are very muscular specimens who have low body fat but high BMIs. They are rarer than most people want to admit, though, and very few of them are excellent climbers on a bicycle. The vast majority of people with high BMIs are just fat.

Another suck on hills guy here. 62 and only been road cycling for 5 months and have improved tremendously in both strength and endurance in that short time. I'm 5'11, 148# so have to disagree with the folks who say it's all about weight. I've lost about 8# since starting this endeavor and have no desire to lose any more. Where I do need the most improvement is in my lung capacity. I've always been somewhat poor there,love to snorkel but could never hold my breath even close to as long as some of my swim buddies who swim most every day. I know my legs need work too. I don't have any measuring devices such as HRM or cadence so have to go on how I feel.
I do have a question regarding the gearing on my bike. It's a steel frame with triple up front and 12-25 on back, 9 sp ultegra. It gives me 30/25 for my granny but have looked at going up to a 12-27 for a bit more help. I've held off though thinking I'd be better served staying with the gearing I've got making it part of my training. I do have another bike with Sram apex which gives me 34/32 for a nice low granny but I'm much happier on my steel framed steed.We do have plenty of steep long hills but once again with no measuring devices I have no idea of actual hill steepness%.

At 5'11 and 148, you don't have anything to worry about weight wise. I'd guess that you're only issue is being quite new to cycling. I'm still fairly new (returning) myself, but each month I find that a hill that used to be quite challenging has fallen into the 'doable' category. If you give yourself some time and set up some incrementally increasing challenges, I think you'll find that you're a lot stronger on hills in another 5 months. YMMV depending on how much you work at it.

[QUOTE=Latif;15182252]Another suck on hills guy here. 62 and only been road cycling for 5 months and have improved tremendously in both strength and endurance in that short time. I'm 5'11, 148# so have to disagree with the folks who say it's all about weight. QUOTE]

It's all about weight for most people after they are in good shape otherwise. In other words, if you're anorexic you aren't going to climb as well as you could. From the standpoint of pro climbers, 2 pounds per inch is the standard.
Some of the best climbers I know are around that number, but it would never work for me.

I have a triple bike with the same gearing as you and the 30x25 isn't a super low gear and many people have lower gears than that on their compact doubles.

Your 250 per mile * 11 miles per hour = 2750 feet per hour /3.28 = 838 VAM. That's very good. I average about 650 (around 2100-2200 feet per hour) for long climbs.

And 250 * 14 mph = 1066 VAM That's comparable to the top 10 riders out of 200 on the local 4% / 1 mile climb. You have some fast co-riders!

:

He has a point: Maybe you just need to find slower people to ride with? ;)

I do have a question regarding the gearing on my bike. It's a steel frame with triple up front and 12-25 on back, 9 sp ultegra. It gives me 30/25 for my granny but have looked at going up to a 12-27 for a bit more help. I've held off though thinking I'd be better served staying with the gearing I've got making it part of my training.

I have compact 50/34 on two bikes and a triple 50/39/30 on the 3rd. Compacts and I run 12/27 for most rides. The triple though and I run a 12/25. 34/27 and 30/25 will get me up most of our local hills that although not long at 1 mile- are between 10 and 15% The triple is mainly used on longer rides and if it is extra hilly then I "May" run a 12/27 on it.

If the hills you have are manageable on 30/25 then I would stay with that gearing. The fact that you have only been riding for 5 months does mean that you will improve on hills and if you don't then make the change to a 27 in a years time. If it is going to be an "Extra" hilly ride then you have the other bike with lower gearing that can be used as the one fault I have found with lower gearing is that you use it and lower gearing also means slower speed.

Hill repeats or structured interval training is the way. In order to climb hills you need a lot of power, and high endurance, both can be built by intense interval training. But also, in by doing intervals a few times a week you may also lose some weight, thats a double whammy

As everyone says, there's no shortcut to building your hill-climbing ability. You simply have to ride more hills, more often.

I'm guessing that the trouble with Cleveland is the same as the trouble with Rochester, WRT to climbing. With the city built on the ancient lake bed, there aren't a lot of hills to work with.


The longest and highest hill I have nearby is only a half-mile and 150 feet. Fortunately it's a nice hill and there's a little-traveled residential street on it that I use for repeats.

Repeats are key, I've found. Just keep riding up, back down, and up again until boredom sets in. Then find another hill and do the same.

There's a chain of hills--glacial moraines--along the southern border of town. I commute along the chain of them twice weekly in the three-seasons, and as often as practical in the winter.

When I'm training for a hilly ride, I start at one end and ride repeats of all the hills to the other end, then turn around and ride repeats back to the beginning. By doing only two or three repeats before moving on to the next hill, it keeps the boredom level down. Plus the profile of each hill is different, so I get different types of training--sit and spin, to stand and grind.

Using just the little speed bumps we have for hills here in town, I'm able to successfully train for a century south of here in the Finger Lakes that boasts 11,000 feet of climbing.

Eastside of Ohio has plenty of hills. A week ago last Sat we rode 55 miles and had 3800ft of climbing

Yes, there are very muscular specimens who have low body fat but high BMIs. They are rarer than most people want to admit, though, and very few of them are excellent climbers on a bicycle. The vast majority of people with high BMIs are just fat.

This is an oversimplification. Different people have different skeletal structures. It's not reasonable to say that everybody should fit on the same (linear?? really??) curve for height/weight. Not surprisingly, people would broader shoulders and bigger bones, in general, weigh more than those without. And there are all sorts of reasons you don't want to have too low a body fat (not that I'm in danger of that).

Yes, most of the people with large BMI are unfit. The only reason that BMI has an predictive power at all (and it's really only at the extreme end of the scale) is because most people are sedentary. As soon as somebody has any muscles from not being sedentary, BMI's usefulness pretty much goes out the window.

In my case, losing 15 lbs of fat would help my climbing (and be healthy). But getting in better cardiovascular health would help it more. And, of course, these two things would probably not be unrelated.

Looking at percent body fat is more more useful, but focusing just on that too much isn't the right answer either.

Regardless of all of this, I would still rather have people look at their own weight before ponying up several thousand dollars to get a bike that's a couple pounds lighter.

So, my answer remains. You want to suck less a climbing, climb more.

Cheers,
Charles

p.s. +1 to Dudelsack for the link to this blog post (http://theclimb.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/ready-to-edit-and-post-expert-advice-from-jonathan-vaughters/). See, I told y'all climbing sucks. :)

When doing hills, is it better to do them seated all the way, or standing the last third? When doing repeats, again, sitting or standing?

When doing hills, is it better to do them seated all the way, or standing the last third? When doing repeats, again, sitting or standing?

I think this was mentioned earlier, but here's my 0.02 anyway:

FWIW, I ride with a triple (30) and an 11-28.

You're more efficient if you stay seated and spin, but that gets monotonous and is hard on the lower back. Standing occasionally will let you change your cadence and stretch out. And although it is less efficient, you'll get more power out of each stroke. I actually rather like standing.

As for me, I sit about 95% of the time, and honk the rest.

When you stand, you should select a gear such that your weight on the pedals is pulls you up ... not a gear that requires you to mash down on the pedals. For me, that's usually 2 clicks up from the gear I was spinning in.

YMMV. :D

Yeah, I stay seated most of the time, but I stand every so often to stretch and recruit different muscles. I have ridden with guys who stand a lot, one pro who stayed standing for 10 miles and was relaxed the whole time.

I hate hills too. Been riding for only three months and where I ride a hill is big if it rises 50-60 feet, which is fine by me. But I know I need to learn to like hills or at least work on them. But dayum....

When doing hills, is it better to do them seated all the way, or standing the last third? When doing repeats, again, sitting or standing?

I find it more efficient to stay seated but when the hill gets steeper- energy has been expended to where you are and cadence has dropped down to where you are pedalling "Squares"-it is time to stand. No changing up a couple of gears as you are already too high by this time already.That final 50 yards of the hill can be ridden then-- instead of walked.

"Rookies complain about hills. Veterans complain about wind." I heard that when I first started cycling seriously, and stopped complaining. I moved to Colorado and got on with it. Hills are opportunities.

Ah, wind. Wind does indeed suck. Or does it blow? Never mind.

http://www.shirt-fight.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/you-suck-blow-me.jpg