Originally Posted by
Carbonfiberboy
The discussion in your link is all correct until it gets down to the fast twitch vs. slow twitch, when it goes off the rails. Muscle fiber has nothing to do with it. It's all about that previous paragraph: This is explained more scientifically through crank inertial load:
http://www.fredericgrappe.com/wp-con...%20cycling.pdf
Change in crank inertial load is the technical difference between cycling on the flat and climbing. This term is also the reason that we pedal at a lower rpm when climbing than we do on the flat:
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...during_cycling
The change in crank inertial load does require a somewhat different neuromuscular adaptation to achieve endurance, which is the reason that the best climbing training is climbing.
The gradient which produces the fastest rate of ascent on long climbs will be the gradient which allows the climber to use their most efficient climbing cadence at their most favorable power, which will depend on their available gear ratios. That said, lower gears and steeper gradients will produce less wind resistance and thus faster ascents.
I think the point of the article was the individual riders exhibit genetic preference for climbing or flat riding and some have the capability for both. The loading of the muscles is due to the energy requirements of the terrain to maintain a particular speed.
I thought the fast twitch requirement interesting. I have mostly fast twitch and hence struggle more with longer sustained efforts and I tend to do better at bursty stuff. The other factor is genetic factors and epigenetics (genes turning on or expressing themselves). I have the ACTN3 gene
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actinin_alpha_3 that is implicated in sprinting. But I suspect many have it as well. Maybe it is the ACTN3 gene that tops up the energy versus the fast twitch or maybe it is all hogwash.
Marcel Kittle, UCI pro sprinter, was a time trialist before he became a sprinter. What is that all about. Another guy good at everything that can transform himself into whatever he wants to be.
I have attended numerous training camps and one of the discussions is aways about power requirements for climbing versus riding flat to rolling. Most riders can make more power climbing than riding flat to rolling - that does not necessarily mean they are great climbers. The question is - why is that the case? And there is the discussion of riding the trainer or rollers and most have difficulty making the same power indoors as they do outside i.e. indoors is less.