Optimum weight for hills?

[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.

[Veronica]

Don't you love generalizations.

Veronica

[GLC1968]

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.

Not entirely true. I can't find it now, but I saw a recap of the height/weight numbers for the top women and top men cyclists (top climbers). The men were as you say - very lean and very strong. The women, on the other hand, were not so lean...or I should say, not so light. They were obviously lean and fit, but overall, the best women climbers were relatively heavier than their male counterparts. I think that this is because women need more muscle to retain their strength where as men can be more of a 'wire-y' strong (if that makes sense).

I remember one woman's numbers specifically because they were so close to my goal. She was 5'4" and 136 lbs. That is 8 lbs heavier than a 2:1 ratio and yet she was one of the best in the world at climbing.

[Biciclista]

8 pounds heavier and I'll bet that is all muscle. She fits into the generalization quite well.
Women can afford to carry more apparent weight because they're generally speaking, shorter. fits quite well.
It's a generalization. It's like saying, It's better to be tall if you want to be a pro basketball player. Then someone's going to trot out this guy who is 5'8" and is a dynamite basketball player. Yes, but most of them are way over 6 feet tall...

[limewave]

This is interesting. I wondered what would be an "optimal" cycling weight for myself. According to "the ratio" I should weigh approx. 134.

That is quite a goal for me to achieve (i'm 183 right now). I do feel like a dead-weight when I hit those climbs. I've managed to master downhilling (I do more mntn biking) and find that I'm able to keep up with Sport women quite well because of my downhill skills. I would LOVE to be able to climb faster though. Then maybe I could move up to Expert . . .

[mirliluck]

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.

Oh sure, I totally get this. But I live in a mountainous region where like 90% of my rides necessarily involve some sort of climb (unless I want to ride around in circles for several miles - which I have done out of sheer hill exhaustion). So I am conditioned for it but thinking in terms of extra advantages. Interesting thread for me...

[Biciclista]

This is interesting. I wondered what would be an "optimal" cycling weight for myself. According to "the ratio" I should weigh approx. 134.

That is quite a goal for me to achieve (i'm 183 right now). I do feel like a dead-weight when I hit those climbs. I've managed to master downhilling (I do more mntn biking) and find that I'm able to keep up with Sport women quite well because of my downhill skills. I would LOVE to be able to climb faster though. Then maybe I could move up to Expert . . .

Limewave, it isn't going to happen if you're not built like a rail! You sound like you're very strong. YOu can't sacrifice muscle to make up for how you're built. Instead, stay healthy and have fun. Know your strengths and work towards goals. but you are what you are...

[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.