My Hill Climbing Technique

[shaper]

Lets face it... if you do not agree with the OP then you are a dumb hubber, but if you do agree with his theory then you are educated beyond your years! An Einstein with an eureka moment!!

[blondeonabike]

Seriously now, I stand in the saddle to climb but do so with my hands in the drops.  I'm interested to find out what hand position other hubbers prefer to use.

[SwissVan]

So for my training tonight i did a little experiment with 3 different techniques. It's not by any means scientific...just something to help pass the time on the IDT.

 

After a warm up i did 3 x 6 minute efforts at 250W, with 6 minutes of easy recovery between each effort. The efforts were done as follows:

6 minutes sitting at low cadence (+/- 80rpm) - effort A

6 minutes sitting at higher cadence (95 - 100rpm) - effort B

6 minutes standing at low cadence (+/- 60 rpm) - effort C

 

The 250W was set on my IDT (powerbean) and remained mostly constant, all i had to do was maintain the cadence, position and in the case of the standing effort technique (Henleys technique).

 

First observation, Henleys technique for me was impossible to try and replicate so after a minute or so i ended up standing more or less like normal, sorry Henley but tbh i don't see the technique being something i will master (you know, old dog and new tricks)

 

Here's the Polar graph, unfortunately it does not show the watts but you can clearly see the 3 x 250W efforts.

 

Now fellow hubbers, lets see who can correctly link efforts A, B and C to the correct HR on the graph

Blue line is temperature

Red line is HR 

 

   

 

 

 

[SwissVan]

Seriously now, I stand in the saddle to climb but do so with my hands in the drops.  I'm interested to find out what hand position other hubbers prefer to use.

 

Mostly on the brake hoods, on the drops if i'm trying to be like Cavendish

[TALUS]

There is no magic. When standing you are recruiting more muscle fibres in total. This means higher potential output at a higher consumption of energy whilst typically decreasing aerodynamic efficiency (although this becomes less important at lower speed). Also you have to carry more bodyweight against gravity. This is like hitting the nitrox button in your streetracer. Short lived. Stand to give muscle groups a break by all means but in most (theoretical) circumstances you should stay seated till near the top and crest standing up.

 

Oh, and I am sure that you cannot honestly believe with all that what is at stake in pro cycling, you have just found a new topic to research. Look and ye shall find.

 

And think twice before calling anyone stupid...

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

 

Blue line is temperature

Red line is HR 

 

   

Capture1.PNG

Interesting data. Will obv need more, but to me it looks as if even though the initial effort had the lower HR, it had by far the longest HR recovery segment. Of course the lower HR could just be from the fact that it was your initial effort, and therefore you were "fresh". But that was seated low cadence, and not the comparison we're looking for.

 

I see the point at which you had to change to "normal" pedalling out of the saddle on effort C. Your HR takes a dip there for about 30s or so, so we don't really know what it would be like with you having a sustained effort (without the interruption) 

 

It *looks* as if it rises more steadily than the seated effort, but also has a longer recovery time, even though the peak HR was (only just) lower than effort B. 

 

Effort B (the one that all the coaches say is most efficient) is interesting. It looks as if it's a gradual rise in HR until a point, at which it plateaus and doesn't rise above again. 

 

Next, Swiss - reverse the sequence. And then switch up again for another. Maybe try a slightly longer effort (thinking 10 minutes) so that the efforts are more sustained and any sort of spike is more likely to be seen as an outlier...

[SwissVan]

Interesting data. Will obv need more, but to me it looks as if even though the initial effort had the lower HR, it had by far the longest HR recovery segment. Of course the lower HR could just be from the fact that it was your initial effort, and therefore you were "fresh". But that was seated low cadence, and not the comparison we're looking for.

 

I see the point at which you had to change to "normal" pedalling out of the saddle on effort C. Your HR takes a dip there for about 30s or so, so we don't really know what it would be like with you having a sustained effort (without the interruption) 

 

It *looks* as if it rises more steadily than the seated effort, but also has a longer recovery time, even though the peak HR was (only just) lower than effort B. 

 

Effort B (the one that all the coaches say is most efficient) is interesting. It looks as if it's a gradual rise in HR until a point, at which it plateaus and doesn't rise above again. 

 

Next, Swiss - reverse the sequence. And then switch up again for another. Maybe try a slightly longer effort (thinking 10 minutes) so that the efforts are more sustained and any sort of spike is more likely to be seen as an outlier...

 

Yeah i agree longer efforts would be better but its Saturday night and the other half was cooking boerewors for supper so time was limited

 

A, B and C are not necessarily the order of the efforts i.e. 1st , 2nd and 3 efforts on the graph, I did not yet reveal which order i did the efforts in...want to see if anyone can see which one was which

1st effort = A,B or C?

2nd = A,B or C?

3rd  = A,B or C?

[Serious Panda]

Mostly on the brake hoods, on the drops if i'm trying to be like Cavendish

 

You should test sitting and standing 50/50 not only standing all the way.

[BarHugger]

There is no magic. When standing you are recruiting more muscle fibres in total. This means higher potential output at a higher consumption of energy whilst typically decreasing aerodynamic efficiency (although this becomes less important at lower speed). Also you have to carry more bodyweight against gravity. This is like hitting the nitrox button in your streetracer. Short lived. Stand to give muscle groups a break by all means but in most (theoretical) circumstances you should stay seated till near the top and crest standing up.

 

Oh, and I am sure that you cannot honestly believe with all that what is at stake in pro cycling, you have just found a new topic to research. Look and ye shall find.

 

And think twice before calling anyone stupid...

This......trust The TALUS to make things easy.

 

Now for something a bit more sobering - you might be able to generate more power standing, but when measured at the crank at a specific physiological workload (or performance).....similar Watts are developed either seated or standing. The seated force application curve is more gradual and "relaxed", the standing curve more explosive and "abrupt".....now to choose the most efficient one.

 

 

 

 

(Some serious measuring equipment and analysis)

 

But using TALUS's analogy.....to be a better hill climber, get a bigger engine and shed some weight......a visit to the human panel beating shop might just be what is needed.

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

Yeah i agree longer efforts would be better but its Saturday night and the other half was cooking boerewors for supper so time was limited

 

A, B and C are not necessarily the order of the efforts i.e. 1st , 2nd and 3 efforts on the graph, I did not yet reveal which order i did the efforts in...want to see if anyone can see which one was which

1st effort = A,B or C?

2nd = A,B or C?

3rd = A,B or C?

Sneaky bastard

[Falco]

Probably because his muscles had been conditioned like that. But yeah. He also may have been unable to keep himself seated with the amount of power he put out!

 

These few words sum up the whole issue.

 

All the pull here, push there theories mean bugger all unless the rider has worked out what is best for his weight, riding style, comfort etc, and then trained his/her body for that way of riding.

 

What works for me, won't work for you. What works for Contador, won't work for Froome.

 

I personally spend a lot of time out of the saddle, because I enjoy riding that way, it works for me and I train for it by doing long stints out of the saddle.

 

Just get on the bike and ride. Enjoy yourself. The rest will fall into place by itself.

[BarHugger]

So for my training tonight i did a little experiment with 3 different techniques. It's not by any means scientific...just something to help pass the time on the IDT.

 

After a warm up i did 3 x 6 minute efforts at 250W, with 6 minutes of easy recovery between each effort. The efforts were done as follows:

6 minutes sitting at low cadence (+/- 80rpm) - effort A

6 minutes sitting at higher cadence (95 - 100rpm) - effort B

6 minutes standing at low cadence (+/- 60 rpm) - effort C

 

The 250W was set on my IDT (powerbean) and remained mostly constant, all i had to do was maintain the cadence, position and in the case of the standing effort technique (Henleys technique).

 

First observation, Henleys technique for me was impossible to try and replicate so after a minute or so i ended up standing more or less like normal, sorry Henley but tbh i don't see the technique being something i will master (you know, old dog and new tricks)

 

Here's the Polar graph, unfortunately it does not show the watts but you can clearly see the 3 x 250W efforts.

 

Now fellow hubbers, lets see who can correctly link efforts A, B and C to the correct HR on the graph

Blue line is temperature

Red line is HR

 

 

Capture1.PNG

OK, I will venture into this conundrum:

 

First effort = high cadence seated

 

Second effort = standing low cadence

 

Third effort = low cadence seated

 

So, what is the verdict?

[Maniax]

You use alot more energy in standing, and can cause oxygen deprivation - meaning you "red-line" much faster.

Use a combination of sitting and standing to use and rest different muscle groups.

[Pulse]

So I did my own little experiment yesterday, but looking at muscle activity.

 

Constant workload

5min @ 65-70rpm seated

5min @ 65-70rpm standing

5min @ 85-90rpm seated

 

EMG for RF, VL, VM

 

Haven't done full analysis, but obvious prelim finding: Significant increase in EMG activity in the contralateral Quads when standing. There is an increased 'breaking' activity in the non-drive leg qhen standing. This will lead to increased DOMS. Maybe not important in short events, but long or multi-day you will feel it.

 

I tried to 'relax' the non-drive leg to reduce the EMG activity during standing (more 'efficiency'), but could not get it much lower.

 

I'll try and post the graphs later.

[SwissVan]

Sneaky bastard

 

Sometimes things are never what they seem.....

 

OK, I will venture into this conundrum:

 

First effort = high cadence seated

 

Second effort = standing low cadence

 

Third effort = low cadence seated

 

So, what is the verdict?

 

Boing... (bell sound) 1 out of 3 correct.

Good guess following conventional theories... 

 

 

 

 

1. Standing low cadence effort ( Avg HR 147 / Max HR 152) resulted in the lowest HR.

This could be because it was the 1st effort, however it is also an activity which i am not used to (standing non stop for 6 minutes) so i would have expected a higher avg HR compared to the other 2 efforts which i am more familiar with.

 

2. Seated hi cadence ( Avg HR 150 / Max HR 156) produced the highest HR, which i expected as in my experience hi cadence cycling does tend to increase my HR and breathing rate.

 

3.  Seated low cadence (Avg HR 149 / Max HR 154)

 

4. From a perceived perspective, the standing effort felt the hardest which imo is understandable as it is not something i normally do for that length of time. It will be interesting to see if i experience any stiffness later today or fatigue in my leg muscles - I'll see when i go for a run later this afternoon. 

 

So, while not being scientific it did turn up an unexpected result IMO which would give Henley some hope for his theory. Keep in mind i could not carry out Henleys actual technique (pedalling like a hopping bunny) as it was to difficult to do, so i followed a more or less normal standing technique. 

 

Overall i don't think there is much in the above results to indicate a definite winner, maybe next week I'll try the same protocol but with the standing effort last.

[BarHugger]

Sometimes things are never what they seem.....

 

 

Boing... (bell sound) 1 out of 3 correct.

Good guess following conventional theories...

 

 

Capture1.PNG

 

 

1. Standing low cadence effort ( Avg HR 147 / Max HR 152) resulted in the lowest HR.

This could be because it was the 1st effort, however it is also an activity which i am not used to (standing non stop for 6 minutes) so i would have expected a higher avg HR compared to the other 2 efforts which i am more familiar with.

 

2. Seated hi cadence ( Avg HR 150 / Max HR 156) produced the highest HR, which i expected as in my experience hi cadence cycling does tend to increase my HR and breathing rate.

 

3. Seated low cadence (Avg HR 149 / Max HR 154)

 

4. From a perceived perspective, the standing effort felt the hardest which imo is understandable as it is not something i normally do for that length of time. It will be interesting to see if i experience any stiffness later today or fatigue in my leg muscles - I'll see when i go for a run later this afternoon.

 

So, while not being scientific it did turn up an unexpected result IMO which would give Henley some hope for his theory. Keep in mind i could not carry out Henleys actual technique (pedalling like a hopping bunny) as it was to difficult to do, so i followed a more or less normal standing technique.

 

Overall i don't think there is much in the above results to indicate a definite winner, maybe next week I'll try the same protocol but with the standing effort last.

OK.....next question. What is your tested max heart rate?

 

Following that, what is your avg effort expressed as percentage of maximum heart rate seperately for all three bouts?

 

Thanks for the info.