Physiology 101: Climbing vs Sprinting power

My uneducated thoughts say it's a lot to do with training your weaknesses. Sure it won't make you 100% the best on the planet but it'd make you propotionately better as a climber i bet.

Thing is in races you may only climb for less distance, but potentially a lot more minutes... so 10% better going uphill would get you a lot more time back than 10% quicker downhill.

I say, train what you need to work on most 🙂

IANAcoach.

Climbing is about power to weight ratio. You either need to increase the power output you can sustain or you need to lose weight. Unless you're already skinny, losing weight is the first thing you need to do to improve your climbing. Being very muscular won't help if your lungs can't supply enough oxygen to keep them going.

Sprinting (on the flat) is basically just about how much brute power you can produce for a very short burst. Being muscular helps because your muscles can only produce maximum power for a short burst, so you're not limited by your lungs.

So what’s the thing that with all else being equal, why two riders with the same FTP one would be a better climber than the other?

There's very obviously some genetics going on. Colin Jackson, the hurdler, was the subject of a fascinating documentary where they analysed why he was so fast. Turned out he had an incredibly rare type of 'super fast twitch' muscle fibre. Also read somewhere recently that Tom Pidcock also has very rare muscle fibre type which he apparently shares with Peter Sagan.

You should do some reading on the different muscle fibre types and how they're recruited and used and how trainable they are. The Trainer Road podcast wanders into this territory quite often.

It also depends what you mean by sprinting. There's a big difference between a track sprinter and someone like Cav, who is basically an endurance athlete with the capacity to produce a short, hard effort after hours of lower level work.

But yeah, you probably need to do lots of climbing. Very much not a coach or cyclist, but a Peak District local who can't avoid hills. I've known a few really good cyclists who've moved up here and taken months to get used to the constant climbs.

So what’s the thing that with all else being equal, why two riders with the same FTP one would be a better climber than the other?

Also, relative to ftp, it's going to depend a fair bit on the type of climb as well as w/kg. There's a big difference between a huge alpine pass and a short, steep pitch and a long climb with added short steep pitches, no? You can have the same ftp as someone else, but recover worse from hard efforts or be able to sustain an effort above threshold for longer or be able to sustain a sub-threshold effort - sweetspot say - for longer despite having the same ftp. That's as much about the limits of ftp as a fitness metric as anything else I think.

Prediction: in a few minutes, this will have become an endless homage to zone 2 training again 😉

It's not just about FTP.
Weight, strength, endurance, recovery etc all play a part.

Rider 1 = 50kg with an FTP of 200
Rider 2 = 100kg with an FTP of 350

Rider 1 has a higher power to weight ratio so should climb faster, but, Rider 2 has much more power so should be faster on the flat during a sprint.

Other factors mentioned above all play an important part.

would preferred cadence play a part as well? ie climbers tend to use a slower cadence than sprinters?  does that tie in with fast and slow twitch muscles?

They're pretty much identical, physiologically
I know this because my ability at both is equal
(ly shite)

Not the science, just my experience (old road and crit racer here). I was coached by a former NZ Crit Racing Champion and most of my training focused on Crits, but that was because I was a fairly strong climber and weaker sprinter. As I don't know the science, just in pub talk mode.....

For climbing, the old mantra of the best way to get better at climbing was to climb more. We used to do our winter training in Snowdonia on certain hills. We had a 30 mile loop that we would do on repeat, this included a 40 minute climb with >20% ramps. The 40 minute effort would be done at FTP but on the 20% sections this would be significantly over FTP. I was pretty decent at the longer climb. We would do the longer climb, descend / recover for 15 minutes then we would have a shorter 8 minute climb where the guys who could ride at well above FTP for 8 minutes would attack. I found this incredibly hard compared to the longer climb.

In my experience on the longer climbs, two riders with very similar FTPs and similar weight would generally climb at a similar rate. Differences would be A: How well you had fuelled before the climb B: Gear ratio (depending on the steepness/your ability to grind on the really steep sections) C: Pacing D: Your ability to recover at just below FTP following a surge into the red (steep section or covering or making an attack).

As I got older C and D were my achiles heel. I would want to go with the attack on the smaller 8 minute climb, I weighed 66kgs and had an FTP of 308, but my 5 minute power versus my 1 minute power was relatively poor in comparison. I would end up cooked fairly early, and then the steeper section halfway up the climb might only last 45 seconds, but I would get gapped as I hadn't been able to recover from the initial effort.

Similaraly as I got older my sprint repeats became the weaker part of my racing. Within a crit or road race, pretty much every corner is a sprint. Positioning becomes key, the further down the pack you are the potential for a longer sprint out of the corner. Younger me found this absolutely fine, I would be able to recover after a handful of into the red sprints, older me - not a chance!

My coach would focus on improving this, and under overs became a staple part of my training. As did hill repeats. Alternating between smaller full gas climbs to doing over unders on a 20 minute climb. But I would be spending most weekends during the winter training on genuine climbs (not South East hills, I used to live in the midlands and would drive to either North or South Wales)

+1 to riding hills more & losing weight (disclaimer not a coach nor a decent rider).

When I was training for Ride London, I just hit the local A road & headed in the direction of the nearest town & back. It was fairly flat so when I went on a ride with a friend on their route, I suffered on the hills (though this is in Kent so "hills" are tame compared to elsewhere). I went to the map & chose a new route to incorporate more ups in my long ride & also had sessions repeatedly riding up & down one of the local climbs on the Downs.

Part of the impetus of doing the Ride London was to get exercising again & lose weight so I also focused on that more than I had been. The combined effect was really noticeable a couple of months later when I rode with my mate again and on the event itself.

FTP (measured in W/kg) only matters if you are doing long steady climbs such that both riders are riding at/around their FTP.

Otherwise, you might as well ask why two riders with the same shoe size climb differently.

Two riders can have very similar FTP but very different 2 min power so a short steep climb will favour one over the other.

Thanks for the replies so far.

Its this

Two riders can have very similar FTP but very different 2 min power

...across the board that I want to know the "why". Reason is, on a long steady Zwift climb - the Epic KOM to the Radio tower - I went from 21st to 84th place amongst riders with similar FTP's and w/KG. Yet, now in a group of riders coming down onto a flat finish, I managed to sprint at 10.5wkg to beat the others over the line. Now Zwift is a bad example, but this plays true in real life as well, whereas I can turn large gears at speed on the flat.

Ideally, I want to even this out so I lose less on climbs.

So what’s the thing that with all else being equal, why two riders with the same FTP one would be a better climber than the other?

I could be wrong but I think there's a lot more to this than the FTP number or a power to weight ratio. A great climber can function around their red line level for 30 mins to an hour perhaps, varying that effort either side of the red line, attacking and recovering many times without a full rest so lactate processing ability etc needs to be A1 (woodster mentions over-unders, I find they really help my climbing ability for that reason). Even a good UK climber needs to be at max effort for 5-15 mins at a time, but a sprinter is past the red line for less than 10 seconds (I'd guess the lead out is intensive too but the main effort is short vs a climb) - it seems like a very different type of effort. Plus a good climber can have arms like pipecleaners, that can't be helpful in a sprint.

I don't know what it is but I've always been able to climb well since I was a kid.
I'm only around 4w/kg and on the flat have been outsprinted by 14 year old girls, but on prolonged gradients over 10% I can often drop cat 1/2s. (And they're on superbikes whilst I'm on my Croix de Fer). I'm happiest out of the saddle and get in a really calm, meditative state during the climb. Absolutely adore hills.

Ah ok why do people with the same FTP have different 2 min power? Greater muscle mass and perhaps fast twitch. I'm a spectacularly poor sprinter but have got a pretty decent FTP around 4ish when last training properly. (Also running, get left behind in 1-2 min interval sessions by people I will slaughter in a flat 10k or longer).

2 mins is muscle power, FTP is more heart and lungs - you still need the legs to use it, but that's not such an issue).

its the ability to recover when you have completed the 1 minyte high power. Some riders have the ability to recover quickly while riding at just below their FTP. I don't think its anything to do with muscle power. Isn't it more about how our body flushes out lactic acid?

At the back of my memory is something about some riders/people have a genetic ability to prcoess glucose better than others. Wasn't there something about the pin prick test being one of the tools used to find athletes? Obviously we can train ourselves, and the below aericle is from a quick google....

https://www.ekfdiagnostics.com/lactate-testing-for-athletes.html

But for road climbs, don't underestimate the importance of fuelling.

FTP is only 1 of 4 areas of cycling physiology (along with NM, AC and MAP).

Everyone is different across those aspects.
Apparently I'm an "attacker" (good at powering away and then recovering, but comparatively weak FTP and sprint).

Here's how WahooX (new name for Sufferfest) explains it:

https://support.wahoofitness.com/hc/en-us/articles/360021387420-Learn-about-4DP

Interesting stuff!!

Reason is, on a long steady Zwift climb – the Epic KOM to the Radio tower – I went from 21st to 84th place amongst riders with similar FTP’s and w/KG.

If you were slower uphill compared to riders that have a similar FTP and w/kg, the only conclusion is that their w/kg is actually better or yours is worse.

How did you measure your FTP?
How did they measure their FTP?

managed to sprint at 10.5wkg to beat the others over the line.

Because you have a higher proportion of fast twitch muscle than they do you can produce higher peak power. Fast twitch cells are anaerobic so fatigue very quickly, but if you have a lot of them the total ammount of work they can do is enough to skew the result of a ramp test. You end up with an inflated FTP which is only exposed on longer efforts.

^i think by similar w/kg he means their zwift category rating - so ftp / weight, rather than the power to weight ratio that they were deploying at that exact moment.

I have similar issues (on zwift as that is the only place where I have ridden with a power meter, extrapolating by ‘feel’ for outdoor riding) where my FTP figure has been derived from a ramp test, and I know that I absolutely could not hold that power constantly for an hour.
Someone else might have a very different power curve and physiology, but come at the same FTP value. We would be very different athletes.

skew the result of a ramp test. You end up with an inflated FTP which is only exposed on longer efforts.

Just speaking for myself, my FTP is calculated via a combo of 20m and a 1hr test.

How did you measure your FTP?
How did they measure their FTP?

From the Zwift data on show for the riders, which as I said isn't really the best example. But this are all riders in my category so the generic - which is a trend IRL as well - result shows I am a poor climber vs my peer group.

Thats why I don't think the answer is in the data, its showing I'm not able to use my power / aerobic capacity for climbing which must be something physiological.

In a Zwift race using Category Enforcement, the zFTP {what ZwiftHQ thinks you can sustain for 40mins+} range in the B pen should be approx 3.36 to 4.2 W/Kg.
There might also be the odd rider in B who has a relatively strong zMAP {what ZwiftHQ thinks you can do for ~6mins} of >4.2W/Kg, but otherwise has CE "C" zFTP of 2.625-3.36 W/Kg.

Over a longer climb like Epic KOM to top of radio tower, 0.84W/Kg difference between the strongest and weakest riders is going to create a ~5min+ gap at the summit.

Tom Pidcock also has very rare muscle fibre type which he apparently shares with Peter Sagan.

sounds inconvenient

Thats why I don’t think the answer is in the data, its showing I’m not able to use my power / aerobic capacity for climbing which must be something physiological.

If you are talking about Zwifting there is no difference between climbing and riding on the flat other than gearing, unless you have something like a Kickr climb hooked up which is changing the effective geomertry/rider position to something less efficient? Having said that gearing and trainer inertia can make a difference. I'd find 20minutes in ERG mode at FTP easier at my optimum cadence, harder at a low cadence say 70rpm and probably impossible at 110rpm. Likewise trainer inertia can help ease me through dead spots in my pedal stroke 53x11 is a lot easier to keep turning in Erg mode compared to 39x25. If you have trainer difficulty set to 100% this could be where you are having problems?

So what’s the thing that with all else being equal, why two riders with the same FTP one would be a better climber than the other?

interesting...

Probably something to do with fast vs slow twitch muscle fibres... endurance (you rarely get an endurance sprint) etc...

As has been said, FTP is a useful indicator, but not the broadest...

Take ME!
My FTP is currently 4w/kg...
At my fittest it was 4.4/kg (312w, 71kg)

"I managed to sprint at 10.5wkg to beat the others over the line" - i can't even imagine figures of 10.5w/kg! Let alone drop bombs like that in a sprint situation of any use...
However, (with a current FTP of 285) I could probably hold 270watts for an hour+ long race (it'll hut, but I could do it)...
And I could probably hold 230watts ona climb all day long....

So i'm more of a climber, with a few bursts of power, but i get whoped ina sprint...

DrP

climbing and sprinting will be different power levels. Look at wahoo's 4DP test.

I can't climb for shit because I can't hold wattage for very long. I can however put out quick burst of power over a short period of time.

I'm currently focused on boosting my MAP (and thus FTP) for this reason. increase in slow twitch fibres and boosting my VO2 while help me.

Super interesting thread already and people have said similar but torque across the pedal stroke is the reason IMO that two riders who on paper should be the same rider by data- are different on hills/flats.

Uphill (and some trainer’s do a fairly good job of replicating it on zwift climbs) you have low inertia/high torque for a larger percentage of the pedal stroke. On flats and downhill, this is reversed.
Fast twitch riders generally do better on the latter.

One of my friends just cannot do his high intensity on the flat. He just can’t find enough torque. Yet stick him up a climb and he can do silly numbers.

I’m the opposite.

I hate the long, torquey efforts with a vengeance. Yet even if I’m gassed from a climb, I can carry on making nearly the same power down the other side whilst recovering. And my favourite terrain for hard intervals is a false flat downhill.

I think it definitely improves with practice. Low cadence drills, using 100% on the Zwift “difficulty” slider and of course just tons of hill reps can help.

Interesting article:
https://www.cyclingapps.net/blog/climbing250w-vs-flat250w-is-there-a-difference/

I think some of this is psychological too. I love riding up hills and I love attacking to get 30 signs on a club ride so naturally I'm motivated to give my best effort when I do those things. Can I give the same beans on a long flat? Physiologically maybe, but it's not an activity that holds the keys to my suitcase of courage.

I'm aware that my underlying physiology will drive this enjoyment to an extent but I doubt it's a one way street.

As somebody with a definite sprinter's physiology (which is practically useless in every day cycling) this topic interests me very much. I've nothing really to add outside of what's been said already.

One of my friends just cannot do his high intensity on the flat. He just can’t find enough torque. Yet stick him up a climb and he can do silly numbers

On Zwift I struggle to maintain power on the flat, a big climb I can maintain higher power for longer periods. I got disqualified from my last race up the Alpe iirc, then reinstated.
I absolutely hate flat (Zwift) races, as a larger rider (nearly 100kg) it should be my strong point. It just isn’t.
The same on the rowing machine. I find it easier with higher resistance to an extent.

There's way more to it than FTP. FTP is suggested as a general metric for comparing fitness. But fitness for what?

Climbers need to be light, of course, but there's no point in having a great 1hr power when climbs are less than 15 minutes long.

However you specifically asked about sprinting power - that's a completely different energy pathway to climbing unless it's something like a Gorrick where the climbs are actually sprints anyway.

I'm a sprinter, but I do really like climbing. I manage it well and I can do lots of climbs in a ride. The only problem is I'm too fat to do it quickly. I think that's related to being a sprinter since I like high intensity riding, MTB rides are often done as a series of sprints (and I live in a hilly area) so that means I get through a lot of glycogen, which makes me want to eat more. I then get good at eating and digesting carbs, which makes me better at smashing out lots of high intensity efforts and so it goes around.

“I managed to sprint at 10.5wkg to beat the others over the line” – i can’t even imagine figures of 10.5w/kg!

That’s like 800 watts for me. Not sure I could spin the pedals at all on erg mode for that level of power on the turbo

Lol, believe it or not my PB is 14wkg over 15s.

Interesting point from Stevious re physiology. I love leading out a paceline on the flat, often on a club ride I'm asked to slow as I can sit at 3.5wkg or above for ages on the flat, and 5 mins at 4.5-5wkg isn't an issue these days either. The pure (bio)mechanical feeling of a road bike slicing through the air like that is wondrous to me.

I don't like hills. The aforementioned climb I averaged 3.5wkg for 25 mins - lower than my FTP - and it felt like death to me.

Sounds like me and crosshair would have a decent ride together!

Lol yes for sure @Kryton57! I was thinking about your question a lot on today's ride and it's 100% torque/inertia that does it for me. The tipping point is any roller that I can't continuously accelerate over. Once I have to slow enough to get 'behind' the bike then the cost of producing the same power rises for me.
And as the road flattens out and the torque reduces, momentum and inertia builds and the power part of the pedal stroke shortens, I can start to lower my HR for the same watts.

Headwinds are nearly as bad. They have the same effect on me as a long draggy hill.

Headwinds are nearly as bad. They have the same effect on me as a long draggy hill.

headwinds are horrible - there’s just a short draggy climb across Ashton court that steepens as it goes - today it had a wind whipping across the top and straight at you down the hill. If you even slightly turned out of going straight ahead it was trying to push you off the bike. What’s normally a spirited climb was a right grind instead.