Originally Posted by
DaveSSS
I can always tell when the people commenting have never ridden for hours at a time in the mountains. The big difference is that the power requirement to keep moving forward is unrelenting. On flatter terrain, you might put out the same wattage, most of the time, but it's common to relax once in awhile. That relaxation period often goes unnoticed. Try that on a big climb and you'll be going backwards.
There really is a big difference between training in the mountains, compared to training on the flats. You need to train in the mountains to be proficient at climbing.
Body weight can be a huge issue. Heavy riders can ride well on the flats, where wind resistance is the major obstacle. Put those guys on a hill or mountain and a 20 mph average guy will ride at 8-9 mph.
Actually, the more accurate situation is that riders who ride the way you describe, who take it easier on the flats than the hills, need to learn to ride harder on the flats. Hills just force the issue of putting up more intensity, but if you can control the intensity without the hills, you really don't need them.
A HRM is an inexpensive but very useful tool for steady state nondraft training rides to maintain similar efforts on flats compared to hills. If you're maintaining the same HR on your flat sections as you do on the climbs, you'll be close enough in power that you'll get similar training effect from both. Slap on a powermeter, and it'll be even more precise.
I don't disagree with you that most riders will take it easier on the flats than the climbs, but that's more a reflection on the rider's habits than the reality that if you're putting up similar power for climbs or flats, you'll be getting very similar training effects and will be similar prepared for race day.