Climbing is hard

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 19:30:44 -0000, "Simonb"
<sbennett@YOUAREALLNETDENIZENSwiderworld.co.uk> wrote in message
<41b75664$0$219$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk>:

>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

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 19:15:07 -0000, "Bob the Builder" <bob@bobson.com>
wrote in message <31p25vF3eaugnU1@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

Dave Kahn

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 21:00:10 +0000, Simon Brooke
<simon@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

Dave Kahn

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 22:32:39 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<uce@ftc.gov> wrote:

>On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 19:15:07 -0000, "Bob the Builder" <bob@bobson.com>
>wrote in message <31p25vF3eaugnU1@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

Richard Goodman

"andrew carver" <andrew.carverNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xqKtd.597$WE2.49@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

> 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?

> And was doing loads drugs too.

Ah, that explains it - I can't afford them

Rich

Jon Senior

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

Paul Rudin

"Bob the Builder" <bob@bobson.com> writes:

> ... sixteen and a half stone ...

I fear that with that mass you're never going to be able to compete
with some smaller guys going up hills.

Console youself by challenging them to a rowing race or game of rugby



> Certainly Lance and Ullrich do not look wimps on the upper body and
> they can climg brill !!

They're both a lot lighter than you than you. Also, they train
full-time...

Paul Rudin

"MSeries" <skankmartin@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'...

Michael MacClancy

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

Jon Senior

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. ;-)

Jon

Doug

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.

He is still a good runner and takes part in the occasional duathlon,
here's an old article about Dirty Du 02:
http://www.adventuresportsmagazine....s/armstrong.htm

"he's apparently never lost the itch for multi-sport racing Armstrong
set a new course record at the Dirty Duathlon on December 8, finishing
the technical course (3-mile trail run/12.3-mile mountain bike/3-mile
trail run) in 1 hour, 36 minute and 5 seconds. Surprisingly, he had to
come from behind to win after Jason Sager out-pedaled him by 2:24
on the biking leg."

Doug

Dave Larrington

MSeries:
> I am 39, six feet two inches tall and weight 11 stones 3 pounds.

Simon Brooke:
> Simon (49, six foot two, thirteen stone and trying hard to lose some).

Gits the both of you. (40, 6'3", 94 kg and considering starting to smoke
again...)

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)

Dave Larrington

Dave Kahn wrote:

> 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.

In the Centrum Ronde Van Vlaanderen in Oudenaarde, there's a bike on a
trainer hooked up to a computer simulation of one of the local "murs", on
which you can go up against a virtual Peter van Petegem. I beat him by
about three seconds, but of course it takes no account of Pie Consumption
and general lardiness. Put the pair of us on a /real/ hill and I suspect
things would be slightly different...

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)

MSeries

Michael MacClancy wrote:
> On 8 Dec 2004 11:51:55 -0800, MSeries wrote:
>
>
>
>>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.


I agree, it isn't what I said. Weight IMHO is the OPs "problem".
Shedding some will almost certainly not make him an "Eagle of Toledo" it
might not stop him being dropped by his friends but I will probably make
him a better climber than he is today. Regarding running and cycling,
since I stopped playing 5 a side football my cycling has been far easier.