Climbing is hard

Bob the Builder

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

Simonb

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?

Call me Bob

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 19:15:07 -0000, "Bob the Builder" <bob@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.

Clive George

"Bob the Builder" <bob@bobson.com> wrote in message
news:31p25vF3eaugnU1@individual.net...

> 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.

cheers,
clive

Tony Raven

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.

Tony

Michael MacClancy

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.

This looks like a helpful link:

http://www.insidetri.com/train/tips...les/1639.0.html

--
Michael MacClancy

MSeries

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.

MSeries

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.

Simon Brooke

in message <31p25vF3eaugnU1@individual.net>, Bob the Builder
('bob@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.

--
simon@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.

Simon Brooke

in message <1102535396.245771.247770@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
MSeries ('skankmartin@hotmail.com') wrote:

>
> 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).


--
simon@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.

andrew carver

<snip>
> For reference, I think Lance is about 5ft 10 inches and weighs about 11st
> 4lbs when racing.

The great (est?) hill climber Marco Pantani was around 59kg at his peak
which is about 9st 3lb!

And was doing loads drugs too.


Andrew

Zog The Undeniable

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.

Michael MacClancy

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. 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.

--
Michael MacClancy

MSeries

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. I realise not everyone is lucky enough to be able
to spend as much time as me indulging in cycling.