Looks like support for the kickr climb could be useful as being able to hit wattage takes different efforts depending on incline
- That’s a conclusion I don’t really see from the study.
Flat specialists presented lower heart rate, perceived exertion, and blood lactate concentration riding on the flat than uphill.
Uphill specialists presented lower perceived exertion and blood lactate concentration riding uphill than on the flat.
In conclusion, the combination of cyclist specialization and road gradient affects physiological and effort perception parameters in response to a similar power output demand.
Coupled with this statement earlier:
The objective was to determine the effects of cyclist specialization on effort perception and physiological response (heart rate and lactate concentration) while sustaining efforts at similar power output but riding on two different road gradients.
Nineteen male competitive road cyclists performed two randomized trials of 10 min at 0% (velodrome) and 10 min at 6% road gradient (field uphill), at an intensity of 10% ± 3% below the individual’s functional threshold power.
Cadence was kept between 75 and 80 rpm in both trials and posture remained unchanged during the tests.
It is unclear to me, but presumably they had riders hold the same position (upper body and grip on bars) for each of the efforts (flat & hill). If that is correct, the simple act of holding a rider flat or tilting them up, should have not major impact on it’s own.
What is more likely the factor here is the momentum / inertia of the rider in each situation. I say that since they kept power as the control, and altered the grade. Doing that, will result in a lower speed on the hill vs the flat.
I don’t think the rider rotation in space matters (unless that rider alters their physical relationship to the bike as a result of that incline, which was not apparently the case here). It is the rider, their training history and physiology against the momentum in play.
It more likely relates to this older discussion that has been mentioned here on several occasions:
1 Like
My reading was that if cyclist specialization was important then if you want to get faster on climbs then train in a position more like a climb will improve climbing over training flat.
- Based on what exact text?
I quoted the parts that seem to eliminate position/orientation as a variable.
For reference, a 6% (6 Rise / 100 Run) grade as used in the study is a 3.43* angle. Hard for me to believe that that minor rotation is the key difference here:
1 Like
Flat specialists presented lower heart rate ( p < 0.001 and ES = 0.2), perceived exertion ( p < 0.01 and ES = 0.7), and blood lactate concentration ( p < 0.001 and ES = 0.7) riding on the flat than uphill. Uphill specialists presented lower perceived exertion ( p < 0.01 and ES = 0.8) and blood lactate concentration ( p < 0.01 and ES = 0.5) riding uphill than on the flat. In conclusion, the combination of cyclist specialization and road gradient affects physiological and effort perception parameters in response to a similar power output demand.
OK, you quoted the same thing I did (I just ditched the numbers to make reading easier).
Presumably you are taking the “road gradient” as the bike angle, and angle only, if you think a Wahoo Climb is the missing link here? Just looking for more specifics about how you are connecting the study info to the Climb angle control.
I see the “missing link” as the inertia and momentum as the real issue, not the relative angle of the bike and rider. Keep in mind the test was actual rolling in space, not locked into a trainer. That is a key difference from what I think you are suggesting.
-
If we talk about “training”, and specifically following structured workouts (be that ERG or Resistance) you are applying power to follow a prescribed workout. I fail to see how pitching the bike up lead to a difference, assuming the rider maintains the same hand and upper body position, relative to the bike as pitched upward.
-
If we are talking about “simulation” for things like Zwift, I suggest that the inertia and momentum via the relative rider speed in the virtual space, and the related flywheel speed of the bike trainer (as it varies on flats vs hills) is the real difference in the loading experienced by the rider.
Again, I feel it all relates to the article linked above, more about the motion through space (momentum as impacted from the hill grade) but not the angle on it’s own.
1 Like
My N=1 is that I seem to be able to push out bigger watts for longer on climbs vs flats…
This is the case in real life and also on Zwift. I do not have a Kickr Climb, so the only variation is that when going up a big Zwift mountain I’m in a small gear with low inertia. Sometimes standing, or spinning quickly, but always in a low inertia condition.
1 Like