Hill climbing simulation on flats - possible?

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I think you blokes have missed the main thing, fitness level!!!

Your heart rate is dependent on your level of fitness.

HR is not a measure of fitness.

Forget all this crap about HR, cadence and power out put and get you your fitness to a level where you need to focus on these things.

The power you can sustain for any given duration is the best measure of fitness.

This doesn't mean you have to have a power meter, since that's just a device to measure things - but not having a power meter doesn't mean a focus on improving power output is the wrong thing. In fact from a fitness development point of view, it's the ONLY thing that matters.

I believe what Alex has developed in his programes for training is good, but unless you have put in the hard yards to start with you will not see the real benefit. ( I await to be put down)

My training plans are designed for anyone seeking to improve their performance, no matter their current fitness level. You won't see benefit if you don't sufficiently execute on the plans.

[foo on patrol]

I don't understand what you are saying with your first answer Alex?
Are you saying that a rider at 5O% fitness riding at 30Kmh will have the same heart rate when he is 75% fit riding at the same speed?

Gary

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I don't understand what you are saying with your first answer Alex?
Are you saying that a rider at 5O% fitness riding at 30Kmh will have the same heart rate when he is 75% fit riding at the same speed?

Gary

I'm saying that HR is not a measure of fitness. It's a measure of the rate your heart is beating and an indicator of cardiac strain.
It doesn't tell you how fit you are. How much power you can sustain tells you how fit you are.

e.g. I can ride hard at, say, 85% of HRmax, but that says nothing about how fit I am. I might be unfit and slow, or very fit and fast.

[human909]

True that.

Furthermore. Heart rate, maximum heart rate and resting heart rate vary significantly between person to person, even if they are fit. The best indicator is the rate that your heart rate drops towards normal after exertion. If you are fit then your heart rate will drop faster.

I personally have quite a high heart rate. My aerobic maximum seems to be around 175-180. Pushing into my anaerobic zone i normally get around 195, I'v seen 210 before on a all out sprint.

[brentono]

I don't understand what you are saying with your first answer Alex?
Are you saying that a rider at 5O% fitness riding at 30Kmh will have the same heart rate when he is 75% fit riding at the same speed?

Gary

I'm saying that HR is not a measure of fitness. It's a measure of the rate your heart is beating and an indicator of cardiac strain.
It doesn't tell you how fit you are. How much power you can sustain tells you how fit you are.

e.g. I can ride hard at, say, 85% of HRmax, but that says nothing about how fit I am. I might be unfit and slow, or very fit and fast.

Alex,
I see where Foo (Gary) is going with this.
There was an historic theory (which I had confirmed with a couple of major international coaches, of the period)
which pretty well compliments what you are saying...

It's a measure of the rate your heart is beating and an indicator of cardiac strain

... the theory went (and you are probably quite familiar with it) that your resting heart rate, when you awoke was an
indicator of your fitness progression, and was relative to you in particular (each individual being different) and as you
progressed, the rest rate became lower. The indicator of cardiac strain, was the morning you awoke,
was when it (RHR) was higher than your personal progressive normal (RHR),
and that would indicate, a rest or light training day.
Would you agree with this?
Think you are both of the same thought, just the explanation, differs.
From my experience, this is the only area where heart rate becomes relevent.
It was said, when I was using this method, that Eddy Merckx had a RHR of around low 30's,
and I thought I reached my personal level of peak fitness, and never got anywhere near this RHR
(around the mid/high 40's was mine)... we are all different.
Let me know your thoughts.
Cheers,
BrentonO

[jacks1071]

There is only one sensible reason to elevate the front wheel when riding a trainer. That's when you need to reduce the weight borne by the hands/arms (which shouldn't be a lot anyway to start with) if for example you have an injury - it can help make the trainer a little more comfortable to use and put a little more weight back on the sit bones (where most weight should already be).

Does raising the rear wheel on a trainer make you a better descender? Of course not.

Honestly folks, think about this stuff a little more carefully before posting.

If you want to go faster up hills, then work on increasing your sustainable power to weight ratio. Hills are good for forcing the higher effort required to elicit such adaptations, but you can get the same adaptations on the flat - you just have to ride hard.

You'd be amazed how slack most people are when riding flat/rolling terrain - something you find out when using a power meter.

This season I've done no hill repeat work and instead have focused on TT type efforts. This has significantly improved my hill-climbing abilities as evidenced in a few pretty hilly events this year. So to answer the origional question - yes I think its possible to not so much simulate hills but to work on the real issues in relation to becomming a better climber without actually riding hills.

The hills are probably nice to keep you in the zone I guess but WITH a power metre on the flat - you can do the work without an issue. I went off to the hilliest stage race in my calender this year with zero hill repeat work and had no problems on the hills. Not to say another 100w of power wouldn't have been nice but I was at least as good as the people I was riding with.