Are you looking to hear from folks who are strong climbers, average climbers, or folks who struggle to climb? It appears that you have mostly heard from strong climbers.

For a strong climber, 6000 feet per day is not much. For a weak climber, it would be a very tough day.

Well you made me look it up. I have 83000 ft climbing this year over 1800 miles. Climbing is a side thing for me, I'm predominantly a time trialist.

Last weekend, I managed 4000 ft over 28 miles on the MTB. When I mentioned this to my husband, his response was: yeah but half the time youre going downhill doing diddly squat.

68000 ft is 20726.4 metres.

I tracked my metres climbing in February (5151 metres) and March (7530 metres) = 12681 metres. I didn't track January, but let's assume it was in the neighbourhood of 5000 metres because that's pretty easy to do in a month around here. And I am currently tracking April. I'm at 2785 metres for April so far.

Total: 20466 metres (67145 feet)

I am younger than you are, but it would appear I'm accomplishing pretty much the same amount of climbing as you are. :)

And I don't think of myself as a climber. Around here, climbing can't be helped. If you're going to ride, you're going to climb.

Made and overshot my goal, mentioned earlier in this thread. Was aiming for 10 mph on a difficult segment. Made 11.4 mph Wednesday. Then rode another 20 hilly miles just to celebrate.

It was awful.

It depends..how many times you ride in a week,how much time to recovery,how much old are you,where you live,i think that normally 100 km with 1000 m of climb is a good ,good result for a cyclist over 60.And ,important,the average speed...

I rode the Copper Triangle, 78 miles, 5,981 climbing feet (three passes, 11,318, 10,424 and 10,666). I was 54. Hardest thing I've ever done, the altitude makes it really difficult. Getting ready for do it again this year (I'm 56).

I also signed up for the Tour de Wyoming, 19,000 climbing feet in 6 days, 400 miles total.

I've outfitted my bike with a triple, 24T on the inner ring with a 14~28 nine speed cassette. I hope it's low enough....

In the hard man category, a cycling buddy of mine did 1.5 million feet in one year, but he was a kid of about 50. He originally set out to do 1 million, but found it too easy. OTOH he was raised in an igloo on the south slope of the Brooks Range. I'm not sure he could feel pain.

But back to the OP . . .I think 7,000' in a day is a totally reasonable goal. That's doable without being a good climber. You need even grades of ~4% and just keep pedaling. Up you go. It's going to help a lot if your BMI is not much over 25.

My regular ride is 1168 meters.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/D2...g=w573-h950-no

Climbing is what I do, but I'm not especially good at it. If I were retired, I could probably do this 3-4 times a week.

The million-foot club would require doing it 5.5 times per week.

IMO, a 50+ cyclist can climb as much as he/she wants to and it is not age dependent. It depends on genetics, preparation and opportunity. Generally, lighter riders are better climbers but not always.

IMO, the accumulated climbing recorded by Garmin and other devices is interesting but may be misleading. For example, recently I was at a training camp in Tucson and climbed Mount Lemmon. The ride starts at 3,300 feet and the top is 9,100. We climbed to 8,500 with a climbing distance of 21.5 miles @5% average grade and 5,200 feet of elevation.

The first 7 miles was brutally hot 100 degrees. The next 7 miles was cooler with some shade and I felt better. The final 7 miles was much cooler but the oxygen was less and power production less. I really suffered the last couple miles.

If I ride rolling terrain with climbs and descents that total 5,200 feet of climbing at lower altitude with moderate temperature, it is much easier.

I moved to SoCal from NorCal last year. At my new location, I do not have the amount of climbing with longer climbs available so my opportunity for more climbing is limited.

IMO, an interesting discussion is why climbing is different from flat to rolling. I have found that I have to practice climbing to be better at climbing and practice flat terrain to be better at flat terrain.

This article discusses the difference riding on flat terrain and climbing and why some cyclists are better at one or the other. https://cyclingtips.com/2013/09/clim...-are-affected/

The simplest way to think about this whole situation is that your muscles need to contract quicker in a high kinetic energy situation (i.e. time trial) than in a low kinetic energy situation (i.e. climbing). Time-trialling recruits more fast-twitch muscle fibres even though you may be at the exact same cadence and same power as when you’re climbing. Depending on your physiological make-up, you will likely be better at one than the other.

Actually a steady climb at 8 to 10 mph with a slope of about 8% is just about ideal for maximizing climbing totals. A climb steeper than 8% reduces cadence to a non optimal rate and a faster pace introduces air resistance that consumes energy. Certainly, higher elevation introduces other issues, depending on conditioning.

The discussion in your link is all correct until it gets down to the fast twitch vs. slow twitch, when it goes off the rails. Muscle fiber has nothing to do with it. It's all about that previous paragraph: This is explained more scientifically through crank inertial load: http://www.fredericgrappe.com/wp-con...%20cycling.pdf

Change in crank inertial load is the technical difference between cycling on the flat and climbing. This term is also the reason that we pedal at a lower rpm when climbing than we do on the flat:
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...during_cycling

The change in crank inertial load does require a somewhat different neuromuscular adaptation to achieve endurance, which is the reason that the best climbing training is climbing.

The gradient which produces the fastest rate of ascent on long climbs will be the gradient which allows the climber to use their most efficient climbing cadence at their most favorable power, which will depend on their available gear ratios. That said, lower gears and steeper gradients will produce less wind resistance and thus faster ascents.

I am going right back to the OP with one simple observation: Patience is a virtue.

To me, climbing is as much a game of patience as it is anything else. It takes time to develop climbing legs, and more broadly skills... such as choosing the right gearing and hence cadence, eaerly shifting to be in the right gear all the time, and having the skill to stand and keep pedalling without putting the heart rate through the roof.

It's also a matter of trying to divert the mind away from the task ahead. Some have said don't look up the road because that can be demoralising. But it can help measure the effort you might have to get to the crest or flat(tish) bit to rest a little. Looking around at low speed can be a bit dicey but it can take attention to the scenery rather than the slope. And there are always your world's problems to solve...

And finally, the skills to drink and eat on the way up cannot be underestimated. I know riders often get to the top of climbs completely done-in and likely because they are dehydrated and undernourished. Taking out and putting in the water bottle from its cage up a 12% grade is not easy if you do so on the flats by coasting. And you get to know that liquid fuel is probably a better proposition on major climbs than hard food, bits of which can be inhaled and cause issues that are prety dramatic.

Machka is a good Prairie girl. Moving to where we lived in the Australian Alpine area in Victoria, Australia, and then to Tasmania was a cycling culture shock for her. But once she got over the idea that she had to attack climbs from the very bottom, and learned how to measure her output to remain viable right to the top, she can now tolerate climbs.

I am not sure, however, if she can understand why I like climbing. Just like I cannot understand why she can tolerate strong winds... as only a good Prairie girl can.

I logged my highest VAM on the Mount Ventoux with its infamous 4 mile 10% grade average in the middle of the climb. When I did it, the Tour de France had raced it the day before and Froome won the stage and I believe he did the climb in about an hour that means he averaged 12.6 mph on the climb. Froome is a great grand tour rider because he can TT and climb.

I did Ventoux in 2 hours at a VAM of 900. I used a 50/34 12/30 cassette. I could have used a 34t rear cog for the steeper section since it is not 10% constant grade but changes from 8% to 12% and steeper on switchbacks but I just stood on the harder sections.

I am not a great climber per se and at hill climb races bump along the bottom of the peloton when the real hill climbers show up to race.

I think the point of the article was the individual riders exhibit genetic preference for climbing or flat riding and some have the capability for both. The loading of the muscles is due to the energy requirements of the terrain to maintain a particular speed.

I thought the fast twitch requirement interesting. I have mostly fast twitch and hence struggle more with longer sustained efforts and I tend to do better at bursty stuff. The other factor is genetic factors and epigenetics (genes turning on or expressing themselves). I have the ACTN3 gene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actinin_alpha_3 that is implicated in sprinting. But I suspect many have it as well. Maybe it is the ACTN3 gene that tops up the energy versus the fast twitch or maybe it is all hogwash.

Marcel Kittle, UCI pro sprinter, was a time trialist before he became a sprinter. What is that all about. Another guy good at everything that can transform himself into whatever he wants to be.

I have attended numerous training camps and one of the discussions is aways about power requirements for climbing versus riding flat to rolling. Most riders can make more power climbing than riding flat to rolling - that does not necessarily mean they are great climbers. The question is - why is that the case? And there is the discussion of riding the trainer or rollers and most have difficulty making the same power indoors as they do outside i.e. indoors is less.

Boy, I hear that. I love climbing ... I can't fathom riding all day in flat terrain. Add wind to the equation and well ...

You can look at it like Doug or Neil. Make mine Neil.

I stopped keeping track five years ago. I live in Utah and most rides are
half climb. half downhill.I don't use any tracking apps. When I get so high that my legs quit working I stop
and go back down. I can ride all day if I go at a reasonable pace. I am 66 and have probably reached my
limit of ability.

Most I have ever done in a day is just under 10,000 feet on RAMROD (Ride Around Mount Rainier in One Day). That 10,000 feet was stretched over 150 miles. More intense was a Mountain Bike ride in the mountains of North-Central Washington where we did 6600 feet in ~24 miles. I have to admit I pushed as much as I rode.

50+ does not restrict your climbing per day. Your doctor might. A loooong day for me would be 12,000ft. over 135 miles. That would be an Event and to get ready for that event, I would do several 7, 8, and 9,000 ft. days over the few months preceding the event. The more you do, the more you CAN do.

I'm with [MENTION=102045]Biker395[/MENTION]. I love hills and hate wind. Unfortunately, my 13-mile commute is almost all flat and extremely windy. I get a strong headwind in the morning, and then normally, the wind turns around to give me a mild headwind in the evening. :troll:

It's pretty hilly near our weekend house, and I'm looking for hills that will challenge me. My limit is not my physical ability but my distance from big hills. I'll find some routes west into the Catskill mountains. I see they're pretty big compared with our hills, and I'm sure a few will be challenges.

For what it's worth, I'm 5'9" tall and 155 lbs, i.e. fairly light.