Originally Posted by
DayGloDago
That's another thing I've been wondering about: It's constant rollers/steep hills where I ride. I like to think that I have to put more effort into riding because of those hills, and that they are what keeps my speed down (I'm just now starting to realistically average 15-16MPH)- but then I think: For all the extra energy I expend climbing,I also get to spend a lot of time coasting, which, in my mind, would negate the climbing and pretty much equal the same effort I would have to put in to maintain a constant speed if it were flat. Ditto the speed. So I can only do 5 or 6MPH up the bigger hills...but that is balanced out by doing 37MPH down the hill....
So is it really tougher/slower ridinf hills than flats? Or does it all balance out? [I tend to imagine the latter. Although, on some of these hills, maybe I should imagine a ladder!]
Hills might force you to output more power if your gears don't go low enough. If you would then use the downhill to rest it could even itself out calorie wise, depending on how much more power you had to use for the uphill. But you will be much more fatigued than if you would have produced a constant power output all the way.
Hills will definitively make you slower than on flats, because you will suffer from the 5 mph for a long time and you can benefit from the 37 mph only for a short while.