TCR no8.

[Geriatricdolan]

Don’t be silly, of course you can go up hills at 2W/kg. You just go up at half the speed of 4W/kg, so perhaps doing 10km/h compared to someone else doing 20km/h.

I don't quite recognise your numbers... I do hill climb races, typically anything between 5.5 and 6.5 W/kg depending on the length (2-10 minute climbs). The only race where i climbed at over 20 km/h was Walbury hill, it probably averages 6%...

At 2W/Kg you'll struggle to keep balance on anything over 7-8%

[Frank9755]

At 2W/Kg you'll struggle to keep balance on anything over 7-8%

Rubbish!  It's very hard to fall off a bike from going too slowly. 

[Frank9755]

How much did you weigh tho? how fast were you going up the climbs? A lot of it also depends on the gradient. The Italian Parcour in TCRNo7 had some 30% gradients, I don't know how many people actually rode up that bit.
... Apologies if this is insultingly low.

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. 

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.

My FTP at the time would have been around 230W.  50-60% of FTP is what most people can generally manage on an ultrarace.

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. 

[Geriatricdolan]

 

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.

I did Hardknott as part of the Fred Whitton, it comes after about 90 miles and after Kirkstone, Honister and Whinlatter, among others. I did go up only because I had a 1:1 gear ratio (34 x 34)... very hard to keep the balance at ridiculously low speed... majority of riders got off and walked and I am not talking about folks with 1.5 W/Kg FTP, more like 3, which you need if you want to finish the event before they close down the HQ.

Before that, I had never seen anything similar, and even after... maybe Bushcome lane in the Cotswolds briefly matches it... but no Wrynose, no Bwlch-Y-Groes are that brutal

[Davef]

 

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.

I did Hardknott as part of the Fred Whitton, it comes after about 90 miles and after Kirkstone, Honister and Whinlatter, among others. I did go up only because I had a 1:1 gear ratio (34 x 34)... very hard to keep the balance at ridiculously low speed... majority of riders got off and walked and I am not talking about folks with 1.5 W/Kg FTP, more like 3, which you need if you want to finish the event before they close down the HQ.

Before that, I had never seen anything similar, and even after... maybe Bushcome lane in the Cotswolds briefly matches it... but no Wrynose, no Bwlch-Y-Groes are that brutal

[Davef]

At 2W/Kg you'll struggle to keep balance on anything over 7-8%

Rubbish!  It's very hard to fall off a bike from going too slowly.

I completely agree. If your gears are low enough to keep the wheels turning bikes balance themselves at very low speeds, way slower than walking pace. Balance goes when you don’t have gears low enough to keep turning.

I have a comedy 20 tooth small chaining I sometimes fit to my CX bike for silliness.

[Geriatricdolan]

 

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.

I did Hardknott as part of the Fred Whitton, it comes after about 90 miles and after Kirkstone, Honister and Whinlatter, among others. I did go up only because I had a 1:1 gear ratio (34 x 34)... very hard to keep the balance at ridiculously low speed... majority of riders got off and walked and I am not talking about folks with 1.5 W/Kg FTP, more like 3, which you need if you want to finish the event before they close down the HQ.

Before that, I had never seen anything similar, and even after... maybe Bushcome lane in the Cotswolds briefly matches it... but no Wrynose, no Bwlch-Y-Groes are that brutal

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)

[Davef]

Don’t be silly, of course you can go up hills at 2W/kg. You just go up at half the speed of 4W/kg, so perhaps doing 10km/h compared to someone else doing 20km/h.

I don't quite recognise your numbers... I do hill climb races, typically anything between 5.5 and 6.5 W/kg depending on the length (2-10 minute climbs). The only race where i climbed at over 20 km/h was Walbury hill, it probably averages 6%...

At 2W/Kg you'll struggle to keep balance on anything over 7-8%

If you go up a 6% hill at 20km/h using 6W/kg then you would go up a 4% hill at 20km/h using 4W/kg. Using 2W/kg would go up at 10km/h.

It is difficult to know how much power is being lost but in terms of vertical m gained it takes 9.8W to raise 1kg by 1m in 1 second (on earth, other planets are available)

[Geriatricdolan]

Don’t be silly, of course you can go up hills at 2W/kg. You just go up at half the speed of 4W/kg, so perhaps doing 10km/h compared to someone else doing 20km/h.

I don't quite recognise your numbers... I do hill climb races, typically anything between 5.5 and 6.5 W/kg depending on the length (2-10 minute climbs). The only race where i climbed at over 20 km/h was Walbury hill, it probably averages 6%...

At 2W/Kg you'll struggle to keep balance on anything over 7-8%

If you go up a 6% hill at 20km/h using 6W/kg then you would go up a 4% hill at 20km/h using 4W/kg. Using 2W/kg would go up at 10km/h.

It is difficult to know how much power is being lost but in terms of vertical m gained it takes 9.8W to raise 1kg by 1m in 1 second (on earth, other planets are available)

Yes, possibly, but is 4% even a climb?

[morbihan]

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.

[Davef]

Shorter cranks make it a little bit harder.

[quixoticgeek]

Given those numbers, it seems to me you would be better off prioritising losing weight, over doing hill training at this stage. There is a long way to go between now and TCR, and if you can lose a kg a week between now and April, then you will be in a much better place to train effectively, with still plenty of time to do things properly.

I am prioritising the advice I get from my coach over everything else. They know more about this than me, and more than many people on this forum. Which is why I am happy giving her a large chunk of money each month.

As for losing 1kg per week. That would mean a deficit over the week of 9000kcal. or 1286kcal per day. With a recommended daily intake for a woman of 2000kcal. That would mean living on 700kcal per day. Which is about 3 mars bars. or 15 apples, depending on which unit of energy you prefer to use.

Or, I could just go for some bike rides. 9000kcal is only about 360km. Which is not too high an amount for a week's training...

Today's ride was 1291kcal...

J

[Davef]

Given those numbers, it seems to me you would be better off prioritising losing weight, over doing hill training at this stage. There is a long way to go between now and TCR, and if you can lose a kg a week between now and April, then you will be in a much better place to train effectively, with still plenty of time to do things properly.

I am prioritising the advice I get from my coach over everything else. They know more about this than me, and more than many people on this forum. Which is why I am happy giving her a large chunk of money each month.

As for losing 1kg per week. That would mean a deficit over the week of 9000kcal. or 1286kcal per day. With a recommended daily intake for a woman of 2000kcal. That would mean living on 700kcal per day. Which is about 3 mars bars. or 15 apples, depending on which unit of energy you prefer to use.

Or, I could just go for some bike rides. 9000kcal is only about 360km. Which is not too high an amount for a week's training...

Today's ride was 1291kcal...

J

That seems very sensible. It also avoids the body going into starvation panic mode. It is always a combination of exercise and sensible eating that works for me.

[morbihan]

Shorter cranks make it a little bit harder.

Gentler on the knees though.

[Lightning Phil]

Shorter cranks make it a little bit harder.

Gentler on the knees though.

Not so sure about that. Sure angle of knee is less at top of stroke (assuming you keep bottom of stroke angle the same) but you need to put more force through the knee to generate the same torque. Mind unless the cranks are significantly shorter, the difference isn’t that great.

[Frank9755]

Shorter cranks make it a little bit harder.

Gentler on the knees though.

Not so sure about that. Sure angle of knee is less at top of stroke (assuming you keep bottom of stroke angle the same) but you need to put more force through the knee to generate the same torque. Mind unless the cranks are significantly shorter, the difference isn’t that great.

The physics is correct so what you normally do is have lower gearing to compensate.

It then becomes easier on your knees as the angle at the top of the pedal stroke is a bit less acute.

[Davef]

Shorter cranks make it a little bit harder.

Gentler on the knees though.

Not so sure about that. Sure angle of knee is less at top of stroke (assuming you keep bottom of stroke angle the same) but you need to put more force through the knee to generate the same torque. Mind unless the cranks are significantly shorter, the difference isn’t that great.

The physics is correct so what you normally do is have lower gearing to compensate.

It then becomes easier on your knees as the angle at the top of the pedal stroke is a bit less acute.

I am sure Archimedes said something similar in αρχές του στροφαλοθάλαμου in 340bc

[Lightning Phil]

Shorter cranks make it a little bit harder.

Gentler on the knees though.

Not so sure about that. Sure angle of knee is less at top of stroke (assuming you keep bottom of stroke angle the same) but you need to put more force through the knee to generate the same torque. Mind unless the cranks are significantly shorter, the difference isn’t that great.

The physics is correct so what you normally do is have lower gearing to compensate.

It then becomes easier on your knees as the angle at the top of the pedal stroke is a bit less acute.

I am sure Archimedes said something similar in αρχές του στροφαλοθάλαμου in 340bc

His bikes used to rust though as he was always in the bath. Plus his cranks moving in water involved different force dynamics.

[morbihan]

Shorter cranks make it a little bit harder.

Gentler on the knees though.

Not so sure about that. Sure angle of knee is less at top of stroke (assuming you keep bottom of stroke angle the same) but you need to put more force through the knee to generate the same torque. Mind unless the cranks are significantly shorter, the difference isn’t that great.

The physics is correct so what you normally do is have lower gearing to compensate.

It then becomes easier on your knees as the angle at the top of the pedal stroke is a bit less acute.

I am sure Archimedes said something similar in αρχές του στροφαλοθάλαμου in 340bc

His bikes used to rust though as he was always in the bath. Plus his cranks moving in water involved different force dynamics.

Don't listen to him. He had a screw loose.

[Paul H]

Or, I could just go for some bike rides. 9000kcal is only about 360km. Which is not too high an amount for a week's training...

Today's ride was 1291kcal...

J

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.

[quixoticgeek]

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

[Paul H]

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.

OK, I'll be in the queue to get the book signed. I do like the idea that weight loss is simple 

[quixoticgeek]

OK, I'll be in the queue to get the book signed. I do like the idea that weight loss is simple 

It really is. The equation is easy. If energy in is less than energy out, the reserves will be used. When reserves are used, weight goes down.

Making that work in practice can be difficult for some, but that's how it works. If you had a steady weight, and started cycling 20km per day (say to work and back), you'd burn an additional ~500kcal per day. 3500kcal a week.

That's at a level you probably won't feel too hungry by, and it's quite a sustainable weight loss.

If you're an idiot (which according to popular opinion on yacf, I am), then you can do other crazy energy expenditure things.

Get up in the morning skip breakfast. Get on the bike. Ride 75km. Your body is going to hate you for it. It won't be pleasant. You won't enjoy it, you won't be quick. But if you're stubborn enough, your body will do it. You have about 2000kcal of glycogen in your body you should be able to do 80km without needing to fuel. But we're not used to it, and you won't enjoy the process.

A couple of years ago in Belgium 150km into a 300k ride, I was riding along singing. A fly decided to sacrifice itself to the cause of silence, and hit me in the back of the throat. I puked. Lost all of my lunch. And then my stomach refused to accept any more food. I did the remaining 150km through the Ardennes, I finished an hour over time, but until 20km from the end when my body would accept a KitKat, i was unable to put any food in. I did 150km on an empty stomach. It was horrible, I would not recommend it. I hit the wall and went through it. But I did finish. I am 30kg over weight. In theory I could do 10000km without needing to eat, just water and some vitamin pills. It just would not be a pleasant experience to do so and would have other annoying side effects. There was a experiment done where an overweight subject was given water and vitamin tablets, and nothing else for several months. He lost lots of weight, but was otherwise unharmed.

Eat less, move more. If you can't eat less, move a whole lot more. If you're not racing, if you're not chasing the clock, you'd be surprised how little you actually need to eat for a given distance.

The challenge with losing weight is to do it in such a way you don't lay in bed unable to sleep cos you're hungry... The rest is just simple maths.

J

[Geriatricdolan]

As for losing 1kg per week. That would mean a deficit over the week of 9000kcal. or 1286kcal per day. With a recommended daily intake for a woman of 2000kcal. That would mean living on 700kcal per day. Which is about 3 mars bars. or 15 apples, depending on which unit of energy you prefer to use.

Simplistic...

You don't need a 9K calorie deficit to lose a kg, simply because when you lose 1kg, only some of it is fat, you also lose water, probably around half of it is going to be water, since you are made up of 60% water or thereabout, maybe less in your case, let's say 50. Then of course no process is 100% efficient... whilst in theory there are 9K calories in a kg of fat, that doesn't mean you can extract them all with zero loss.

1-2 pounds a week seems to be the guideline for weight loss and even I, when I had a BMI of 25, managed to lose a pound a week for about 3 months without starving myself. It shouldn't be difficult at all to double that, if you are much higher in BMI.

With that in mind, if your coach thinks it is more important to prioritise your climbing, then I agree you should follow the advice you pay for. At the end of the day, in some races I have been beaten by folks that I would call "fat", so it is possible to climb fast even with a few extra kg... it just makes it harder.

[quixoticgeek]

Simplistic...

Well yes, it's a forum post, not a peer reviewed journal article. What are you expecting?

You don't need a 9K calorie deficit to lose a kg, simply because when you lose 1kg, only some of it is fat, you also lose water, probably around half of it is going to be water, since you are made up of 60% water or thereabout, maybe less in your case, let's say 50. Then of course no process is 100% efficient... whilst in theory there are 9K calories in a kg of fat, that doesn't mean you can extract them all with zero loss.

Um, no. To lose 1kg of body fat, you need to burn 1kg of body fat. That means 9000kcal. Water loss is something that is so variable that it should not be factored into weight loss. Being dehydrated one day vs the next. This is why I don't weigh myself in the few days after a long ride, as it takes a couple of days for the body to stabilise.

1-2 pounds a week seems to be the guideline for weight loss and even I, when I had a BMI of 25, managed to lose a pound a week for about 3 months without starving myself. It shouldn't be difficult at all to double that, if you are much higher in BMI.

Um, why would I be losing pounds? If I wanted to lose 1-2 euros, I'd buy some fries...

Yes. It is the guidance from pretty much everyone seems to be to try to lose 500-1000g per week for safe, sustained weight loss. 500g of body fat is 4500kcal or 642kcal per day over 7 days. Which is about 26km of cycling.

I'm sure someone here suggested cycling about 20km per day as a way to lose weight... who was that?

With that in mind, if your coach thinks it is more important to prioritise your climbing, then I agree you should follow the advice you pay for. At the end of the day, in some races I have been beaten by folks that I would call "fat", so it is possible to climb fast even with a few extra kg... it just makes it harder.

"You don't look like a cyclist" I am often told.

I saw a doctor a couple of years back.

"Do you exercise?"

"I ride my bike"

"Do that more"

8 Weeks later, I walk into his office.

"You told me I need to cycle more. Since our last appointment I've done 2072km, which is less than the 2500km I did in the 8 weeks before the last appointment. I'm worried I am not able to cycle more than I already am"

The look on his face was priceless.

No doubt I'd struggle a lot more if I lived somewhere that wasn't pancake flat.

I have about 26 weeks until the race. Any weight loss will help me. Full on starvation will not help me either with training, or with keeping the weight off.

My biggest concern is over training. Cos I know I've done that in the past, which is why I have a coach, to guide me through this, so I don't fuck it up.

J