I really do wish you every success with that, though you would be the first and I hope it isn't a plan you're relying on.
I lost 15kg in 9 months without changing my diet. Just by cycling more.
I only put some of the weight back on when I got ill.
Weight loss is simple, eat less, move more. If you're struggling to eat less, move even more... That's what I did.
My challenge now is not over training.
Yes, possibly, but is 4% even a climb?
Yes. Yes it is. Anything above 0% is a climb. It's kinda implicit in the fact that a positive gradient is used.
Is it a big climb? not for some people, for others it is.
A complete newbie who's got a stock bike from the local bike shop, or decathlon may well find a 4% incline a challenge. Esp if it goes on for a really long time.
To say "Pah, is that even a hill?" is hardly the best attitude.
You'd do well to invest in a power meter if you want to keep track of this stuff.
There are no dual sided power meters that work with my setup. I have Shimano M8000 2x11 drive train with 28/38 at the front. I have yet to find a dual sided power meter that will do this. Not to mention just how expensive a power meter is.
I'd love to have one, but currently budget says no.
Next big purchase is upgrading the brakes.
I was about 72kg and went slowly up the climbs. The reason I was doing 120W rather than 100 is because I needed to put in a bit more effort to keep moving and stay on. Lots of climbs might include some short ramps that are very steep but the duration is important. The Grosse Scheidegg and Giau both had about 10km at slightly under 10%. They are steep climbs, but not stupid.
Yeah, it's how long the ramp lasts for that can be key. Some of the hills in limburg look benign on paper, until you realised the 15%+ ramps in the middle.
The hardest thing I have ridden up is Hardknott. It has two short sections which are 30% but the average is 14%. It is in the UK so it isn't very long, maybe 3km. I don't know if the TCR one was like that. If it was, I would have certainly been walking. When Mike was running the TCR, everything was rideable - it didn't have the crazy parcours which have now become a feature.
The parcours in the earlier editions certainly seem to be more suitable for actual humans. That's for sure.
My FTP at the time would have been around 230W. 50-60% of FTP is what most people can generally manage on an ultrarace.
Unfortunately 50-60% of my FTP (tho I've not measured it recently, but doubt it's grown significiantly), would be about 60-70 watts. Not enough to get up any significant rise...
If you can do your FTP for much more than an hour, it's not your FTP! There are well-established power curves which show, for an FTP of X, what your power should be as % of X, for durations from a few seconds upwards. If you are significantly below your curve at any point it generally shows a lack of training for that duration.
Yeah, it think I've misinterpreted how FTP works. Not having a power meter it's largely been abstract to me.
This does make me wonder how things like the Super Randonnee rides work. To complete 10000m of climbing in 600km in 60 hours, climbing must be done at a really significant proportion of FTP.
Yes, but that is a hundred yard long, it's not even a climb, it's a very steep bump... and if you take the bend on the opposite side is not 40%... besides, it's one way going down. IMO Hardknott is unparallelled, because of sustained gradient and the gradient comes in the form of vicious bends, whereas other steep climbs are easier to deal with because they are straight (Bwlch-Y-Groes, Wrynose for instance)
Nope, it's a climb... The fact that nearly all of us would have to get off and walk it, is a good indication that it's not just a bump.
I think you can get bogged down on power data in general and particularly for the ultra events where so many other factors can affect how you are moving forward.
Fatigue, heat, injuries, state of mind, riding style, perhaps age, the terrain and conditions that you regularly train in.
My ballpark power figs are 3.5 w/kg or there about.
On first TCR I had gearing of just over 1:1
Second one exactly 1:1 and it wasn't enough! Cue multiple ugly incidents of a destroyed rider trying to clip in on super steep slopes wasting precious energy.
The new set up is 0.72 and shorter cranks and flat pedals.
My power figures suggest that 1:1 would be sufficient, but its not. I like riding up hills, but perhaps Im not very good at it.
Exactly, this is part of what really annoys me when people say things like "A 1:1 gear is enough for anyone!" or "with a 30:34 you'll be spinning up those hills".
I stand by my belief that pretty much all off the shelf bikes have gearing that is just too high.
We're not Marriana Vos, we're not Anna van de Bregen, I wish they'd stop selling bikes like we all are.
J