Well, I'll be honest I haven't tested myself on a 10 min hill since I got my power meter. However, I don't see a big difference in power between 5 min hill repeats and 5 min intervals on the flats. I find the hill repeats a little easier mentally but I have to ride 45 min to get to a 5 min hill so I end up doing them on the flats more often.

But why?

Which brings us full circle to the original question - why can the OP produce more power climbing than on the flat? I'd start by looking at what's different between the two conditions. Same rider, same bike, same position assuming he stayed seated for both efforts, freely chosen cadence assuming he didn't run out of gears, the only difference is the inertial load when pedaling which then feeds into what umd posted way back at the beginning of the thread about neuromuscular demands. Although, I would add that high inertia riding (flat, downhill, tailwind) makes it easy to let up on the power for very short periods without a noticeable drop in speed (or heart rate), but a considerable drop in power.

Yes, yes. More recent research says that it's only true at moderate power, and may not be true for everyone.

It does have a bearing on the original question, in that I'm saying that if one ignores "natural cadence," it is probably true that one's natural climbing cadence puts out more watts per unit HR than one's natural flat cadence. The OP has already discovered that this is true on the RPE scale, and I congratulate him on his willingness to try something new. But we haven't had that personally confirmed with HR yet, by people we know and trust.

Besides, it'd be fun, unless one doesn't like LT intervals.

What's true for moderate power?

i'm using a powertap pro wired... my friend upgraded and gave me her old one, but it seems to be reading correctly. ive used it side by side with her new one so the numbers should be reliable. i did the hill test on a steady 1.5 mile 6% climb... its more like an 8 min max since i get up there averaging a shade under 12mph. the flat was just a straight river bed road... but like many others have said, its definitely hard to focus and really hammer on the flats. i think i had a tailwind too, which i've noticed tends to lead to lower numbers because there's less force to deal with? and psychologically when i hit 26+mph i think its already too fast and i feel like i'll blow up any minute.

Really? You don't notice a difference, especially if you ignore your HRM? I sure do. Nothing gets my HR up like climbing. I really have to work to hold it on the flat, but I can climb for a long time at or near LT without forcing it. I don't think it's just me, as others here have commented on that over the years.

By "inertial load" do you mean the more constant load on the chain imposed by the gradient? It does seem like the steeper the climb, the quicker LT comes. But as I keep saying, there is another difference, which is that freely chosen cadence, which the OP has already confirmed has an effect.

That at moderate power, the lowest HR, i.e. greatest efficiency, occurs at about 55 rpm. Try it yourself on your rollers at say, 80% of LTHR. Just takes a few minutes. It's pretty obvious. It's also obvious that you can't keep it up for long. Oh- you'll need resistance for that HR. If you want to use straight rollers you'll have to back it off to a lower percentage. Maybe better on a trainer. But you don't need a power meter. Speed works fine for comparison, just doesn't give you power.

Yes, you keep saying it, but it still doesn't make any sense. You're confusing cause and effect. If freely chosen cadence is different, there must be some underlying reason why. What are you suggesting that is?

I do, but some people do not. I find it easier to produce more power for longer on climbs, although recently I have gotten much better at producing power on flat ground.

You are really obsessed about the HRM...

I can keep my HR low climbing, and I can jack my HR on the flats, if sufficiently motivated for either.

I think for many people the natural inclination is to work harder on climbs and relax on the flats. If I focus on maintaining a certain power output I can usually hold it pretty steady, flats, climb, and descent. I really have to, if I ever want to work on steady-state power because even the flattest roads we have hear are still pretty rolling. On a recovery ride I can cruise up a hill and on a threshold day I can hammer a descent. But if I have no goal I will go harder on the climb than the flats.

That's where I stopped reading.

Personally, I find it difficult to put out decent power downhill. In a tailwind I don't have a problem because it's fun going fast with no wind noise.

I'd try a few 8 min intervals on the flats at 280W and see how it goes. Experiment with different cadences. An HR strap, while not necessary, would give you some extra data points. You may not be as close to 'blowing up' as you think.

Efficiency is not calculated using HR. You might get a rough idea but it won't be accurate.

Aren't the greatest cyclists of yesteryear glad they weren't worrying & dealing with all this crap, like its made much of a difference anyway (no offence umd & your wonderful power meter).

Ride your bike & ride it hard.

Name one great cyclist who wasn't obsessed with squeezing out every bit of performance he was capable of. The only thing that's changed is the tools they have available.

What make you think they didn't monitor their power? Just because they couldn't do it conveniently doesn't mean they didn't worry about it. The laws of physics haven't changed in the last 50 yrs and going up a hill with a known grade in a given amount of time provides a reasonable estimate of your power output.

Hey, you didn't see Eddie Merckx, Bernard Hinault etc powering down the road comtemplating 'wheres my power at'. These guys were putting out the same speeds & times of guys of today. It was all about dedication & high intensity.

I think it's funny that sick continues to single me out. The OP's question was about power meters. It would be kind of stupid to not talk about power...

They ain't worrying about it. There just pedalling, training hard through all weather conditions with one thing on there brain. Getting to the top of the sport & being the fastest. Its all too technical now, no need for it.

I know how much you love your power meters umd.

We are talking about power. Just not the be all end all.

And anyway, A power meter wouldn't look right attached to my banana bike.

And why weren't they using 10 or 11 speed cassettes? Or cassettes for that matter? What's up with those freewheels? Do they like breaking axles?

Is this a rhetorical question?

I'll immediately discount inexperienced riders who don't get the whole cadence thing.

The rest of us have many freely chosen cadences. We adopt these cadences after long experience and experimentation to see what works best for us. On the flat, we feel we have more room in our aerobic capacity, and so we ride at a higher cadence, which imposes a greater aerobic load, but with the benefit of sparing our legs. We spin fast at a low pedal effort. Oxygen is free, glycogen is not. Contrary to what the authors in my link supposed, I find that fast LD riders frequently ride at a higher cadence than average roadies.

OTOH, when climbing we want to ride at some particular fraction of our LT, depending on the length of the climb(s) and what we feel we can sustain for the entire remaining course. We want to maximize our elevation gain at our chosen HR. So we ride at a lower cadence, because we produce more power for that HR. We may not understand the physiology, but we know when we are the dropper and when the droppee. And we may not ride at our most powerful cadence for that HR, again because we know we have a long way to go and need to spare our legs as much as possible.

In time, these experiences build in a set of reflexes which enable us to be still more efficient at our chosen cadences. I climb best at exactly 78 cadence. Two rpm higher, and I feel a little breathless and my speed drops. Two rpm lower and my legs start to feel it. But I don't think that's some exact magic thing, it's just what I've become comfortable with. But the reason I've become comfortable with it, is that over many years of hard climbing I've found that, on average, I tend to climb faster at about that cadence.

Others, with much higher VO2max than mine, will choose to climb at a higher cadence with greater aerobic cost and lower leg effort. Why? Because they can afford to. Why not spare your legs when you can do so while putting the hurt on others?

So we get accustomed to riding at one cadence climbing and another on the flat. We used to see TT specialists who TTed at a low cadence, about the same as their climbing cadence, and for the same reason, as TTs aren't that long. Lance ushered in the theory of fast cadence, as I said above, because he could and was one of the first to realize that he could.

Even if the above were all true, it doesn't answer the question of why most folks today, including me, TT at a higher cadence than they climb, as HR is the same in both contexts. I've tried TTing at a lower cadence and it just feels like the strength is pouring out the bottoms of my feet. My guess is that I don't have the appropriate muscular development necessary to produce a lot of leg effort from the aero position. IOW, if I TTed every time I rode, and did strength work in aero position, maybe my TT and climbing cadence would be the same. Right now, I can put a lot more force all the way around the circle with my hands on bar tops. Lifting the rear leg is really hard for me in aero.

I'd also do better with longer legs, so my thighs didn't hit my ribs when in aero. Crank length differences aren't nearly enough to compensate for the natural variation in human leg length.

asgelle.

umd.

It's as technical as using a watch while running. Some of us can handle it.

I dunno - you got a better way when you're out on the road? Love to hear it.