Comment by inopinatus | Hacker News Reader

Comment by inopinatus | Hacker News Reader

I still have the email that Andy van Bergen wrote to the Hells 500 group in 2013, suggesting that we turn George Mallory’s notoriously epic training regime into a permanent cycling challenge. I was up for the bike ride but quietly skeptical that it would become a lasting phenomenon. In Andy’s words:

> “This epic is tough - but it will form the springboard for a new wave of endurance riding around the globe.”

Still, as part of the launch of Everesting as a standing challenge, I cleared six solo, unsupported repeats of Australia’s Mt Hotham in February 2014.

Then I slept for a week.

Fast forward to today, and it’s evident that I was wrong and Andy was right. There are nearly twenty-three thousand Everestings documented in the official hall of fame, and no doubt more unrecognised besides. I guess it’s a combination of being just-about-achievable, with constraints that help focus the effort without compromising the difficulty, plus the enjoyable imagery associated with the branding.

Will I do it again? Probably not, but if you’re interested, then let it be known that no great athletic gifts are required, and with adequate preparation and mindset a very average cyclist (such as myself) can pull it off.

No "very average" cyclist can complete even one ascent of Mt Hotham, let alone 6. Even whoever has last place on the Strava segment for any HC climb is well above the "average" cyclist, who will get off and walk for any gradient over about 7 or 8% (let alone The Meg, an infamous pinch early in the climb that reaches something like 17%).

I don't think you need to replicate the gradients of whatever mountain you're "everesting".

That’s not the point they’re making, I think - they’re giving praise and kudos to the post above, saying they’re better than “very average” if they’ve pulled off that ascent 6 times

EDIT: Maybe average within this “hell 500” or whatever clique.

But: Saying that you are just average compared to the general population when you are clearly above average is humble. Saying that you did six laps compared to George Mallory’s eight laps[1]—which forced him to get up ~before sunset in order to be able to ride his bike all day up and down a mountain/hill—is just a humble brag.

At some point the supposed humbleness loses all suspension of disbelief.

[1] Getting up to a best of six laps still took George Mallory from about New Years Day until Autumn.

I’ll kindly ask you to stop misrepresenting my remarks. There is nothing humble about them. It’s unqualified outright bragging. I’m extremely proud to have achieved this.

The motivation of my further comment in regards to being average, that is to say, a very ordinary person, is to encourage others that similarly want for any particular athletic gift, who may look at this sort of thing and might like to have a go, but aren’t sure of themselves, and it’s to them I say, you can do it, because I did.

Great!

Perhaps not but the average cyclist isn't going to ride for 24 hours straight or whatever is necessary for a climb with a lower gradient either. Anyway I was only responding to GP's suggestion that their own effort was achievable by an average cyclist.

I think this remark illuminates the psychological barrier that I’m alluding to. To be clear, I’m speaking of potential, not of the likely outcome if you took someone off the street today at the median ability of all current bicycle owners worldwide.

If someone is healthy and fit enough to ordinarily ride a bicycle, then with the right equipment and preparation they will almost certainly be able to ascend the likes of Mt Hotham, and with a lot more preparation they will probably be able to do it six times. If they really want to. Probably. I speak as living proof of that, because only a few years prior to doing so I weighed 120kg, smoked forty cigarettes a day, owned no bicycle at all, and had sat on my backside for years without any cardiovascular exercise.

At the time of writing, there’s only one other documented everesting of Hotham in the hall of fame, and frankly that surprises me.

I'll add myself as a second data point here. Lots of beer. Lots of cigarettes. Lots of sitting and programming.

Now most of my friends think I'm some kind of elite athlete and I am not, I just rode around on a bike every couple of days for several years. It is incredible what a change in lifestyle can do.

The average person can absolutely everest, or ride 100k, or whatever, given a bit of training. Of course, training for a year so you can ride your bike up and down a hill all day isn't that appealing to most folks. But it could still be done.

Both of you guys are relying one data point. If you look at the literature on exercise adaptation you actually find a incredibly large variance in the response.

There are a decent amount of people, who just don't adapt to exercise.

Any links would have been great :) But yes non-responders do exist, and some people even discover serious cardiac conditions through exercise.

In an attempt to clarify "decent amount", maybe this helps? https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-018-01041-1

I don't generally understand these surveys. This one seems to indicate the term "non-responder" is not just unhelpful, but possibly damaging.

"Thus, just because an individual does not improve their VO2max or 1RM with training, this does not mean that they have not derived a multitude of other benefits from exercise, many of which, such as increased social interaction seen in community exercise settings"

What I don't see in this survey is anything related to "off the couch" improvements, which is clearly what we are talking about. Neither myself nor GP said we went from regionals to nationals. We went from cigarettes and beer to recreational riding. I have a hard time believing those gains aren't available to almost everyone. But, I didn't find a study so it doesn't exist :)

If you look at all the positive benefits of exercise you find very few people who don't get some positive benefit from exercise whether that's better insulin sensitivity, better vO2 max, better cholesterol, or weight loss.

But when you look at one specific benefit of exercise such as the endurance required to accomplish these feats you find far more non responders.

Fair point, and great work pulling that off. I still remember when my own fitness was at a level I couldn't imagine doing a climb like Hotham - while I have done it more than 6 times now they certainly weren't all in one day!

I'm very average - just turned 50, semi-regular MTBr - Have completed the "3-peaks" incl "The Meg" (which I had never ridden before), and watched many walk while I stayed in the saddle - but I have MAD respect for those (2 so far that I know personally) who have 'Everested' - these levels feel exponential in nature...

Nah, if you can do 3 peaks you can do an everesting. It might be twice the elevation gain but my own everesting was actually a shorter distance and probably only took a couple of hours longer than a typical 3 peaks' time.

Yeah I've done Horrible Hilly Hundreds full distance twice.

(https://www.horriblyhilly.com/ride-details/)

Man that is tough, and only about 35% of the way there. Now, a lot of the distance/time comes from transits between the various climbs, but man. I guess if I spammed a single hill in that I'd guess Everesting would be the equivalent timewise/effortwise of about that plus 25-50%.

So you pick a hill to do it on. First of all, get a triple and the biggest rear cog you can. THe key to non-pro-bike-rider climbing is getting lots of gears. For hills all road groups are hilariously too coarse for real sustained climbing. Lance Armstrong, pinnacle of the EPO era, was famous for high-rpm cycling and let's face it, his sustained Wattage output (to say nothing of watt: weight ratio) was 2.5 to 3x what an everyday cyclist could sustain. And yet he probably ran the same 53/39 and 11-25 groupset that they sell at the LBS. Yeah he was spinning a bigger gear, but the point is HE'S 3-4x THE POWER/WEIGHT RATIO and on the same gears.

So get a triple (52-40-30) and go to MTB on the rear if you have to to get to 30+ rings on the back.

Then, weight weeny everything else. Especially your wheels, climbing is about imparting and losing angular momentum to the wheels as much as the actual overcoming of gravity. Protour riders used to have certain ultralight rims IN THEIR CONTRACTS insisting the team provide them regardless of their equipment sponsorships.

Now, what's the best hill to pick? This is all about long term endurance which means Zone2/Zone3. It's 8800m. so...

5% grade: 20x vertical height so that 180 km/112 mi. 10% grade: 10x vertical height so that's 56 miles.

7% average is probably the sweet spot. Not so slow that you're losing your mind, Not so fast where air resistance comes into play.

You'll want a hill with a far steeper descent that ends up in the same place.

You'll want a hill with smooth concrete. Once you start getting tired, every crack, bump, and hole becomes misery and momentum killers. Bike climbing is about sustaining momentum.

But finally, you'll want a hill with a tailwind. Oh yes, it matters a lot, every percentage point is very viscerally felt when climbing inclines. You'll generally be sitting up in the saddle, and a tailwind that is >5mph will be PUSHING YOU, with your body as a sail.

If I could find a 8% Grade climb with a 10+mph tailwind on good concrete a well setup bike, this is probably easier than doing an Ironman (2.4 mile swim / 112 mile bike / 26.2 mile run) on courses like Ironman Wisconsin (where the bike is basically Horrible Hilly lite).

I'm assuming you get a refill/refuel provision/support? Don't carry excess liquid and food!

Finally, it will help to lose weight obviously.

These days you can get a 12 speed Gruppo and get even more favorable gearing ratios, ie 48/30 and 10/36. And it will be lighter than an 11 speed triple. Remember that if everesting for time you will want as large of an outer ring upfront as possible.

I'm well past the age I would do any crazy descents.

I wonder how many fraud everestings there will be with e-bikes. The criteria are basically you keep your camera running on a known hill.

For everyone who didn't know such as myself: Hells 500 is a Facebook group of cycling enthusiasts who like to bike hills/mountains.

https://m.facebook.com/hells500

It is a group, but it is not a facebook group.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com