Originally Posted by practical

I pretty much agree with the "as hard as you can go for however long" philosophy to a point. But I find no virtue in attacking hills and I avoid them when I can. There are a lot of riders who love to ride the gaps and will do six gaps in a day. The climb up feeds their pride and ride down feeds their need for thrills. Good for them but I will never be in that class of cyclist nor do I aspire to. I say all of this to simply ask about the assumption that climbing hills faster is a worthwhile goal. I'm not saying it isn't for some, but it doesn't have to be; and so before worrying about gear ratios, power output and bmp, worry about whether or not you're having fun. Don't obsess over performance.

Originally Posted by chasm54

I'd say it is close to a definitive no. The lower gear, higher cadence route is likely to drive the hr even higher, so the most likely result is that the op would settle into a slightly more sustainable (aka slower) pace.

NTTAWWT