Optimum weight for hills?

[Catrin]

Thankfully my trainer is a mountain biker and has competed in the past - he also road bikes - he is a life-long avid cyclist. He and his wife seem to have taken me under their wing as I progress and he even went with me to my first ride outside of the training parking lot - I think they were more nervous than I was about my first time around cars

I train with him two days a week - and he is also my spinning instructor. He does focus on core and balance training, along with strength training and plyometric exercises. I also do my own strength training twice a week outside of our sessions - usually before spinning

As we get closer to spring I see our exercises starting to change, and I will ask him about this as well.

Thanks for your input - I suspected that I was focusing too much on the actual numbers...

[GLC1968]

Catrin - when I first started riding, my goal was to use the bike for my cardio to lose the last 10 lbs. I was significantly larger than all the women I rode with and I was thicker (if not actually heavier) than most of the guys. What stunned me and everyone I rode with was how I flew up hills. I used to look forward to the uphills on large group rides so that I could pass everyone and get some riding room! And I was an absolute beginner, too. I remember being shocked at a photo of myself after I'd been riding a few months - I felt like a lean mean riding machine but the photo said otherwise. I'm 5'4" and I was 142 lbs at the time.

Now, 5 years later I'm almost 30 lbs heavier and I can feel it when I ride...particulalry on the hills. Part of my problem is my lack of conditioning (though that's greatly improving thanks to running and swimming) but I can definitely feel my bodyweight holding me back. I have NO acceleration on even the smaller hills like I used to. And they are certainly not fun anymore.

So for me, even though I thought I was heavy and needed to lose weight, it turns out that about 140 is my 'happy hill' biking weight. 170 is not. I can use these numbers to gauge my progress or to set goals because I've lived them. For a new rider, you are going to have to figure them out for yourself. The overall key is your strength-to-weight ratio (besides cardio conditioning and bike skills) and there is a fine line in order to optimize that. I'm strong, so pulling 140lbs up hills was 'easy'. For some people I know, that would be total hell. It's all very individual. But, like wiser people than me have said, the best way to figure it out is to keep riding!

[malkin]

No weight I have ever been has been particularly happy on hills.

[TryingisDying]

Im not a small girl....size 8-10....But I also compete in du's and tris and marathons. Muscle weighs more than fat...it is about your endurance/fitness level for the average person.

[Biciclista]

the best hill climbers have a 2:1 ratio height weight OR LESS. (I read this sometime back..)
take your height (we'll use me) 63.5 inches. weight 128 --- 63.5+63.5= 127
so even though I am not the strongest or fittest rider, hills are easier for me than, say a well muscled man who weighs 185 lbs and is 5'9" tall.The ratio again: 69" 69+69=138... there's no way he's ever going to take hills easily. He's probably strong enough that he can do them, but he'll never be king of the mountain.

[OakLeaf]

Is that for men or women?

At any given weight, a healthy athletic female will have a body fat 5-8% higher (I mean as a % of total body weight - body fat itself could be 50-80% higher) than a healthy athletic male. As far as strength-to-weight ratios, competitive weight-lifting records are instructive that men have about the same strength as women 20% heavier.

I have trouble believing that a pat formula like that would hold for both sexes.

[Biciclista]

that is for men AND women. It's certainly not exact. I don't know who you ride with, but start looking around. You'll notice that bigger people width-wise are not the champion climbers. Both men and women, if they're much taller than I am, it is the narrow shouldered people who excel at climbing.
And i'm not talking about fat, nor sex differences, this is a general thing, not a specific thing.
You'll notice that shorter women can get away with more "apparent" weight because of that particular ratio. And i'm not saying that a person who does not match that ratio can't climb or can't climb well. I'm just saying they're going to have to work on it perhaps more than the guy who weighs 130 pounds and is 5'10".

[mirliluck]

the best hill climbers have a 2:1 ratio height weight. (I read this sometime back..)
take your height (we'll use me) 63.5 inches. weight 128 --- 63.5+63.5= 127
so even though I am not the strongest or fittest rider, hills are easier for me than, say a well muscled man who weighs 185 lbs and is 5'9" tall.The ratio again: 69" 69+69=138... there's no way he's ever going to take hills easily. He's probably strong enough that he can do them, but he'll never be king of the mountain.

Interesting. What if your ratio is slightly under? 67 inches at 130? Should I be an even better hill climber or worse?

And while what you say about the 185 lb man makes sense, doesn't the fact that he is muscular (vs. a hypothetical less muscular dude) count for anything?

[Biciclista]

better! but this is a generality. the less you weigh, the less muscles you need to climb. But you still need muscles to climb!

Look at pro cyclists. They are not built like charles atlas. That's a lot of extra bulk up there that you have to carry up the hills. And if they're naturally built like that, it's a detriment.

[sgtiger]

Like other things of this type, it's only a general guideline. Obviously someone who is fit and has been training, but is over or under the guideline, will climb a lot better than someone who meets it precisely but is not fit and hasn't done much hill training.

[Catrin]

the best hill climbers have a 2:1 ratio height weight OR LESS. (I read this sometime back..)
take your height (we'll use me) 63.5 inches. weight 128 --- 63.5+63.5= 127
so even though I am not the strongest or fittest rider, hills are easier for me than, say a well muscled man who weighs 185 lbs and is 5'9" tall.The ratio again: 69" 69+69=138... there's no way he's ever going to take hills easily. He's probably strong enough that he can do them, but he'll never be king of the mountain.

This is interesting, and I heard someone discussing this before spinning class the other day. Of course as a beginner the only way to learn how to master hills is to ride them. All I care about is to be able to get up and over them The ratio is interesting.

[ny biker]

No weight I have ever been has been particularly happy on hills.

What she said.

I was only a few pounds above the "optimal" weight last year and was just as slow going uphill as I was when I weighed 15 pounds more.

[tulip]

When I'm between 120 and 125 pounds, I'm a whole lot better climber than when I was 145 pounds. No question.

I can't really say that I'm a better climber because I'm lighter or because I'm riding more. For me, when I ride alot, extra weight does not stick around. I cannot do a controlled experiment that would entail alot of riding/training and being heavy; my body just doesn't function that way.

To the OP, focus on riding alot and climbing and intervals. You will become a better climber that way. Just ride.

[shootingstar]

Am trying to imagine what it be like for me to be approx. 120 lbs. if that rough ratio was properly applied to my height, 5'1".

Or even reduce it abit to 110 lbs. if I became a muscular powerhouse, since my bone structure is small, not just because I'm short.


Am having a hard time imagining the above, because I have never been up that high. Just going over 100 lbs. makes work harder to get the weight down.

But I do know someone who is 4'11" and is 106-108 lbs, cycles (commutes, long-distance bike touring), plays tennis several times per week and does some weight-training also several times per week. She looks slim.

[tulip]

I'm too lazy to figure out what my ideal weight would be using that formula given earlier, but I'm 5'6". Of course, height matters!