Jeez, I cannot belive how hard this climbing lark is!!! I consider myself quite fit - though quite heavy with it. I can do five mile runs in 36 minutes so I am no lard arse. I'd say I have the build of someone like the javelin thrower Steve Backley with a lot of upper body muscle and some flab (35 - 36 inch waist and sixteen and a half stone and six feet two). Is this detrimental to my climbing ability? What do you think? Surley the muscle on the upper body must help to some extent. Certainly Lance and Ullrich do not look wimps on the upper body and they can climg brill !!
What am I doing wrong? I can sprint as well as almost anyone yet I keep being dropped on hills. My rest pulse is 39 and my max is 187 and I am 38 years old. I can easily hit my HR max on long hills that are not that steep and I am getting dropped. This is quite embarrasing for me and I need to sort the problem out. I feel I need to lose some weight. I reckon with tis problem sorted I could be a really fast rider.
Bob the Builder wrote: > Any opinions guys or help? Thanks.
At 16.5 stone you'll never be a great climber no matter how strong you are. It's physics, innit. How you'd lose weight I don't know, as you say you're already fit. Is it possible to somehow lose muscle mass?
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 19:15:07 -0000, "Bob the Builder" <b...@bobson.com> wrote:
>I cannot belive how hard this climbing lark is!!! I consider myself quite >fit - though quite heavy with it. I can do five mile runs in 36 minutes so >I am no lard arse. I'd say I have the build of someone like the javelin >thrower Steve Backley with a lot of upper body muscle and some flab (35 - >36 inch waist and sixteen and a half stone and six feet two). Is this >detrimental to my climbing ability? What do you think? Surley the muscle on >the upper body must help to some extent. Certainly Lance and Ullrich do not >look wimps on the upper body and they can climg brill !!
They weigh several stones less than you. Me too in fact, I'm a similar build to you. Actually, wondering about your performance as compared to that of armstrong and ullrich is only going to lead to confusion and disappointment all round, best not think about them. :)
Weight is a critical factor when it comes to climbing, heaving the extra mass upwards adds a great deal of work to the equation, and the extra bulk in the upper body doesn't really help very much in that situation. Being small and lean gives a great headstart when you have a mountain to get up. Sprinting as you have noticed is a very different kettle of fish.
>What am I doing wrong? I can sprint as well as almost anyone yet I keep >being dropped on hills. My rest pulse is 39 and my max is 187 and I am 38 >years old. I can easily hit my HR max on long hills that are not that steep >and I am getting dropped. This is quite embarrasing for me and I need to >sort the problem out. I feel I need to lose some weight. I reckon with tis >problem sorted I could be a really fast rider.
Losing weight will make you faster up hills for sure, and so will climbing more hills. Practice makes perfect.
Incidently, you say you can "easily hit" your max heart rate on long hills, that suggests to me than that your max HR is higher than you believe. By definition reaching that max is a difficult and very painful thing to do, particularly on a bike I understand.
--
Call me "Bob"
"More oneness, less categories, Open hearts, no strategies"
Email address is spam trapped, to reply directly remove the beverage.
> What am I doing wrong? I can sprint as well as almost anyone yet I keep > being dropped on hills. My rest pulse is 39 and my max is 187 and I am 38 > years old. I can easily hit my HR max on long hills that are not that steep > and I am getting dropped. This is quite embarrasing for me and I need to > sort the problem out. I feel I need to lose some weight. I reckon with tis > problem sorted I could be a really fast rider.
Is it a problem? If you want to be a great climbing cyclist, then yes, you've probably got too much weight - probably several stone too much. However you could look at something else, eg track, where your strength will be more of an advantage (track riders have more upper body strength than climbers), and just accept you're not going to be totally wonderful up hills. Depends how much you want to sacrifice to your cycling.
Bob the Builder wrote: > Certainly Lance and Ullrich do not > look wimps on the upper body and they can climg brill !!
If you read his book Armstrong was not a very good climber but the medical treatment he underwent changed significantly his body shape and with it his ability. So unless you are planning something radical, you may just have to accept it.
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 19:15:07 -0000, Bob the Builder wrote: > Jeez, > I cannot belive how hard this climbing lark is!!! I consider myself quite > fit - though quite heavy with it. I can do five mile runs in 36 minutes so > I am no lard arse. I'd say I have the build of someone like the javelin > thrower Steve Backley with a lot of upper body muscle and some flab (35 - > 36 inch waist and sixteen and a half stone and six feet two). Is this > detrimental to my climbing ability? What do you think? Surley the muscle on > the upper body must help to some extent. Certainly Lance and Ullrich do not > look wimps on the upper body and they can climg brill !!
> What am I doing wrong? I can sprint as well as almost anyone yet I keep > being dropped on hills. My rest pulse is 39 and my max is 187 and I am 38 > years old. I can easily hit my HR max on long hills that are not that steep > and I am getting dropped. This is quite embarrasing for me and I need to > sort the problem out. I feel I need to lose some weight. I reckon with tis > problem sorted I could be a really fast rider.
> Any opinions guys or help? Thanks. > Bob
Why do you think the upper body muscle will help?
For reference, I think Lance is about 5ft 10 inches and weighs about 11st 4lbs when racing.
Bob the Builder wrote: > Jeez, > I cannot belive how hard this climbing lark is!!! I consider myself quite > fit - though quite heavy with it. I can do five mile runs in 36 minutes so > I am no lard arse. I'd say I have the build of someone like the javelin > thrower Steve Backley with a lot of upper body muscle and some flab (35 - > 36 inch waist and sixteen and a half stone and six feet two). Is this > detrimental to my climbing ability? What do you think? Surley the muscle on > the upper body must help to some extent. Certainly Lance and Ullrich do not > look wimps on the upper body and they can climg brill !!
> What am I doing wrong? I can sprint as well as almost anyone yet I keep > being dropped on hills. My rest pulse is 39 and my max is 187 and I am 38 > years old. I can easily hit my HR max on long hills that are not that steep > and I am getting dropped. This is quite embarrasing for me and I need to > sort the problem out. I feel I need to lose some weight. I reckon with tis > problem sorted I could be a really fast rider.
> Any opinions guys or help? Thanks. > Bob
I am 39, six feet two inches tall and weight 11 stones 3 pounds. Since I lost four stones I can climb much better and faster than I used to be able to and faster than some of the younger riders with whom I ride. My waist is about 32". Upper body muscle is not useful for climbing, its just weight to be carted around.
Lose some weight and practice rding the hills. Running might be the problem, you need cycling muscles for cycling not running, I bet Lance Armstrong doesn't run very far when he's in training.
Bob the Builder wrote: > Jeez, > I cannot belive how hard this climbing lark is!!! I consider myself quite > fit - though quite heavy with it. I can do five mile runs in 36 minutes so > I am no lard arse. I'd say I have the build of someone like the javelin > thrower Steve Backley with a lot of upper body muscle and some flab (35 - > 36 inch waist and sixteen and a half stone and six feet two). Is this > detrimental to my climbing ability? What do you think? Surley the muscle on > the upper body must help to some extent. Certainly Lance and Ullrich do not > look wimps on the upper body and they can climg brill !!
> What am I doing wrong? I can sprint as well as almost anyone yet I keep > being dropped on hills. My rest pulse is 39 and my max is 187 and I am 38 > years old. I can easily hit my HR max on long hills that are not that steep > and I am getting dropped. This is quite embarrasing for me and I need to > sort the problem out. I feel I need to lose some weight. I reckon with tis > problem sorted I could be a really fast rider.
> Any opinions guys or help? Thanks. > Bob
I am 39, six feet two inches tall and weight 11 stones 3 pounds. Since I lost four stones I can climb much better and faster than I used to be able to and faster than some of the younger riders with whom I ride. My waist is about 32". Upper body muscle is not useful for climbing, its just weight to be carted around.
Lose some weight and practice rding the hills. Running might be the problem, you need cycling muscles for cycling not running, I bet Lance Armstrong doesn't run very far when he's in training.
('...@bobson.com') wrote: > Jeez, > I cannot belive how hard this climbing lark is!!! I consider myself > quite > fit - though quite heavy with it. I can do five mile runs in 36 > minutes so > I am no lard arse. I'd say I have the build of someone like the > javelin > thrower Steve Backley with a lot of upper body muscle and some flab > (35 - > 36 inch waist and sixteen and a half stone and six feet two). Is > this > detrimental to my climbing ability? What do you think? Surley the > muscle on > the upper body must help to some extent. Certainly Lance and Ullrich > do not look wimps on the upper body and they can climg brill !!
Lance has relatively little upper body development. Most of the really good hillclimbers I know are built like whippets. Upper body weight really does not help you on climbs.
-- si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ Copyright (c) Simon Brooke; All rights reserved. Permission is granted to transfer this message via UUCP or NNTP and to store it for the purpose of archiving or further transfer. Permission is explicitly denied to use this message as part of a 'Web Forum', or to transfer it by HTTP.
> Bob the Builder wrote: >> Jeez, >> I cannot belive how hard this climbing lark is!!! I consider myself > quite >> fit - though quite heavy with it. I can do five mile runs in 36 > minutes so >> I am no lard arse. I'd say I have the build of someone like the > javelin >> thrower Steve Backley with a lot of upper body muscle and some flab > (35 - >> 36 inch waist and sixteen and a half stone and six feet two).
> I am 39, six feet two inches tall and weight 11 stones 3 pounds.
Git.
Simon (49, six foot two, thirteen stone and trying hard to lose some).
-- si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ .::;===r==\ / /___||___\____ //==\- ||- | /__\( MS Windows IS an operating environment. //____\__||___|_// \|: C++ IS an object oriented programming language. \__/ ~~~~~~~~~ \__/ Citroen 2cv6 IS a four door family saloon.
> Simon (49, six foot two, thirteen stone and trying hard to lose some).
I lost just under 4 stones in 2 years by healthy eating, very little booze and plenty of miles. It wasn't really hard just takes lots of time to put the miles in. My wife is on the healthy eating plan so its easy for me to eat healthy too. She is also pretty cool about me being out cycling so much. I realise not everyone is lucky enough to be able to spend as much time as me indulging in cycling.
> Lose some weight and practice rding the hills. Running might be the > problem, you need cycling muscles for cycling not running, I bet Lance > Armstrong doesn't run very far when he's in training.
Running almost certainly isn't the problem. Before he concentrated on cycling Lance was an extremely good triathlete. If you want to lose weight running is a better way to do it than cycling because the power output is normally higher. It is also probably a better way of improving your aerobic capacity. However, cycling is more specific in its muscle usage than running so if you want to be a really good cyclist then you need to do cycling specific exercises, including weight exercises for the legs.
I think you need to accept that you have some disadvantages when climbing but you can almost certainly improve substantially.
Bob the Builder wrote: > Jeez, > I cannot belive how hard this climbing lark is!!! I consider myself quite > fit - though quite heavy with it. I can do five mile runs in 36 minutes so > I am no lard arse. I'd say I have the build of someone like the javelin > thrower Steve Backley with a lot of upper body muscle and some flab (35 - > 36 inch waist and sixteen and a half stone and six feet two). Is this > detrimental to my climbing ability? What do you think? Surley the muscle on > the upper body must help to some extent. Certainly Lance and Ullrich do not > look wimps on the upper body and they can climg brill !!
> What am I doing wrong? I can sprint as well as almost anyone yet I keep > being dropped on hills. My rest pulse is 39 and my max is 187 and I am 38 > years old. I can easily hit my HR max on long hills that are not that steep > and I am getting dropped. This is quite embarrasing for me and I need to > sort the problem out. I feel I need to lose some weight. I reckon with tis > problem sorted I could be a really fast rider.
You will, as others have said, never be a GREAT climber. You should be able, with training, to keep up with the rest of the pack.
Look up Eros Poli's stage win in the 1994 Tour de France if you want true inspiration: he's 6'4" and was about 13.5 stone when he was racing, yet he beat everyone over Mont Ventoux [1]. Magnus Backstedt is even heavier IIRC, and he won Paris-Roubaix this year, although that's not very hilly. You can often bump into Backstedt at Newport track because he lives locally.
[1] actually, Poli *was* crap at climbing, but he'd put 25 minutes into the peloton before the mountain - enough to keep him clear until the finish at Carpentras. He said he only attacked because he had also been out on his own for about 100 miles the previous day and was most annoyed at being caught before the finish.
Guys, Many, many thanks for your thoughts and opinions. I feel the concensus is that, sure losing weight will help no end but I should forget any Alpe 'd'Huez champion ambitions!!! Thanks again, Bob
> Jeez, > I cannot belive how hard this climbing lark is!!! I consider myself quite > fit - though quite heavy with it. I can do five mile runs in 36 minutes > so I am no lard arse. I'd say I have the build of someone like the > javelin thrower Steve Backley with a lot of upper body muscle and some > flab (35 - 36 inch waist and sixteen and a half stone and six feet two). > Is this detrimental to my climbing ability? What do you think? Surley the > muscle on the upper body must help to some extent. Certainly Lance and > Ullrich do not look wimps on the upper body and they can climg brill !!
> What am I doing wrong? I can sprint as well as almost anyone yet I keep > being dropped on hills. My rest pulse is 39 and my max is 187 and I am 38 > years old. I can easily hit my HR max on long hills that are not that > steep and I am getting dropped. This is quite embarrasing for me and I > need to sort the problem out. I feel I need to lose some weight. I > reckon with tis problem sorted I could be a really fast rider.
>At 16.5 stone you'll never be a great climber no matter how strong you are. >It's physics, innit. How you'd lose weight I don't know, as you say you're >already fit.
Keep climbing?
Guy -- "then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 19:15:07 -0000, "Bob the Builder" <b...@bobson.com> wrote in message <31p25vF3eaug...@individual.net>:
>Certainly Lance and Ullrich do not >look wimps on the upper body and they can climg brill !!
Well there you go. Ride your bike for a minimum of four hours a day, every single day for six years, and you'll be well away :-)
Frankly those bastards piss me off no end. I am one of the fittest people I know, and they go uphill faster than I ride on the flat. On a recumbent! Bastards.
So, what to do. As everyone else says, keep the cadence high, the gears low, keep your arse on the saddle as much as possible, and ride that bike.
Now the important question: why should you care? Do they or do they not wait for you at the top? Enjoy the ride, I say!
Guy -- "then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales
<si...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote: >Lance has relatively little upper body development. Most of the really >good hillclimbers I know are built like whippets. Upper body weight >really does not help you on climbs.
Pictures can be deceptive because he has very good muscle definition. His upper body muscles, though not bulky, are well toned and he has very little fat when racing fit.
-- Dave...
Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain
On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 22:32:39 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<u...@ftc.gov> wrote: >On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 19:15:07 -0000, "Bob the Builder" <b...@bobson.com> >wrote in message <31p25vF3eaug...@individual.net>:
>>Certainly Lance and Ullrich do not >>look wimps on the upper body and they can climg brill !!
>Well there you go. Ride your bike for a minimum of four hours a day, >every single day for six years, and you'll be well away :-)
>Frankly those bastards piss me off no end. I am one of the fittest >people I know, and they go uphill faster than I ride on the flat. On >a recumbent! Bastards.
There was a web site created by a Leftpondian that enabled you to compare yourself directly with Armstrong or Pantani. You keyed in the vital statistics of your best climb - distance, time, average gradient, gradient and length of steepest section, total climb etc. etc. etc. and it assessed what, for example, Lance's Alpe d'Huez performance would translate to on your hill. The instructions were quite involved but the last two were: read off Lance's or Marco's virtual time for your hill; resolve not to give up the day job.
-- Dave...
Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain
> The great (est?) hill climber Marco Pantani was around 59kg at his peak > which is about 9st 3lb!
Oh that's good to hear. There has to be some advantage to being skinny I suppose. I should be able to go uphill like a rocket then, since I weigh something less than 55kg.. Err.. wonder why I can't?
"MSeries" <skankmar...@hotmail.com> writes: > Simon Brooke wrote:
>> Git.
>> Simon (49, six foot two, thirteen stone and trying hard to lose > some).
> I lost just under 4 stones in 2 years by healthy eating, very little > booze and plenty of miles. It wasn't really hard just takes lots of > time to put the miles in. My wife is on the healthy eating plan so its > easy for me to eat healthy too. She is also pretty cool about me being > out cycling so much.
Yeah. My weight had slowly crept up to about 14 stone by the end of last year, and I decided to lose a bit. I was kind of surprised how easy it was once I decided to do it. I lost a stone and a half in the first couple of months of the year, by making sure I did plenty of excerize (running and cycling) and just being sensible about food. Cut back on the booze, cake, chocolate, etc. and take relatively small servings at meal-times (you can always have another snack later if you get really hungry).
Now I'm stable at about 12.5 stone and eat what I feel like, although I still do plenty of excersize. I might do another half a stone sometime soon, but I don't really need to be any less than 12 (I'm 187 cm tall and 39 yrs old).
> I realise not everyone is lucky enough to be able to spend as much > time as me indulging in cycling.
With work, wife and kids it can be hard to find time. Using cycling as a form of transport helps - especially for the commute to work since that happens every day. Also you can go riding recreationally with the family. With smaller kids off-road is really better than on the road I think. Of course small kids are going to be slow, but they can improve fast. I often go out for a ride with my 6 year old daughter, she can keep going for two or three hours without problems. Kids don't seem to do hills well tho'...
On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 00:31:39 +0000, Jon Senior wrote: > Michael MacClancy wrote: >> Running almost certainly isn't the problem. Before he concentrated on >> cycling Lance was an extremely good triathlete.
> But not the cyclist he is today. If you look at the before / after > photos from the treatment, you'll see a serious change in physique.
> Jon
He was already an elite cyclist before the treatment, winning the 1993 World Championship at the age of 21, the 1995 San Sebastian and 1996 Fleche Wallone. He had also won stages in the TdF.
The loss in upper body weight resulting from the treatment has undoubtedly improved his cycling performance but it would have also improved his running performance.
The problem that runners have when cycling is that cycling is more specific in its muscle usage, demanding greater output from a smaller number of muscles. My point to the OP was that if he wants to lose weight (and doesn't have loads of time to cycle) he'll find running of assistance.
I have a suspicion that his cycling performance would improve fastest by spending a lot of his cycling time on a turbo-trainer and doing weight training for his legs with lots of repetitions with relatively light weights.
Michael MacClancy wrote: > He was already an elite cyclist before the treatment, winning the 1993 > World Championship at the age of 21, the 1995 San Sebastian and 1996 Fleche > Wallone. He had also won stages in the TdF.
True. I guess the loss of upper body strength (and mass) would have impacted his swimming if he'd tried triathlons again.
> The loss in upper body weight resulting from the treatment has undoubtedly > improved his cycling performance but it would have also improved his > running performance.
> The problem that runners have when cycling is that cycling is more specific > in its muscle usage, demanding greater output from a smaller number of > muscles. My point to the OP was that if he wants to lose weight (and > doesn't have loads of time to cycle) he'll find running of assistance.
Agreed.
> I have a suspicion that his cycling performance would improve fastest by > spending a lot of his cycling time on a turbo-trainer and doing weight > training for his legs with lots of repetitions with relatively light > weights.
How depressing. I'd consider climbing more hills. Not as controlled, but doesn't involved staring at the walls. ;-)
