Originally Posted by
CheGiantForLife
Today, I rode 15 miles of flats. It was a joke compared to 3 minutes of hills.
It is easier to ride 50 miles of flat than 20 mins of constant hills.
Anyone who thinks these are remotely comparable clearly does not own a bike.
It depends on how you ride both and the combination of your fitness and your gearing in some cases will matter a great deal.
Several years ago I rode a very hilly century (11K' of climbing) and my training where I live (constant up/down with no long flats or climbs or descents) did not prepare me well for 45+ minutes of constant/hard effort (or you could take the view that I rode the ups too hard). I had some serious cramping issues and was at around the 65-70 mile point when I realized that (1) I was in survival mode and (2) was not cramping on the flats (where I was doing kind of recovery riding at no more than 200W). So I just decided that I would not go up at any more than 200 watts. I did not exceed that (not much for long anyway) and I had no more cramps.
But we had passed the steepest of the climbs (above 12%). Had I encountered any of those grades from that point foward, it might have been a different story as 200W would have forced me down to a such a low cadence that the required pedal force might have created different issues for me. I honestly do not know and there are no long 12+% grades where I live to try out.
So it depends. The fitter you are and lower your gears, the wider the range of hills that you can 'ride like the flats'. And there does remain another variable - if occasional 'backing off a bunch' is a necessary part of your riding the flats, then long climbs will present a bigger challenge. Again - it depends.
For me I just ride the ups harder because that is what I do. I don't have to, but that is what I do (and what most do).
dave