Ok, first of all, I do not claim to be a great climber. If you read my last comment carefully, you will realize that I wish I had a much easier gear when facing a 22% grade after a month off the bike. I felt that I was about to topple because I couldn't go faster (because of the amount of force I had to apply). I was also too scared to put a foot down, because I slip all the time stopping on a downhill grade on my cleats. I also do not do super long endurance rides. My strengths are crit racing and time trials (not the hill climb kind). So I can sympathize with the ability to need a little extra help going up hills. I am not an endurance cyclist. When I used to run, I was never a distance runner. I am really impressed by those who can go for a couple hundred miles, because I am not built to do that. My training rides tend to be in the range of 40-70 miles with maybe a max of around 5000ft of climbing. Most of the terrain is rolling, but some areas have a general upward trend for maybe 30mins, and I will do hill repeats on hills about a mile long with an grades of around 8%-12%.

My comments were not meant to be derogatory. I wasn't trying to call anyone a weakling or lame or whatever because they may or may not have a big cassette and little front ring. Most of the offended have replied defending their gearing that is very near 1:1. My comments were directed towards the suggestions for comments that something like a 26/34 gear (rear/front) would help the OP. My comments were based on a combination of 2 things, mainly. 1) my experience training on gradients ranging from 6% to 15% regularly (over a variety of distances) and the occasional encounter of some steeper climbs I'd prefer not to revisit. I am also still fairly new to this, and I remember how hard it was to work up to longer rides with lots of climbing. 2) I have recently discussed climbing setups at length with more experienced people, because I have an extra frame laying around, and I'm trying to think about how to build it up. I was contemplating what cassettes I might put with a 34T ring. I was comparing that with some triples and with what I currently run. The most I heard was not to go even all that close to 1:1 and definitely not past it, because to use those gears, I'd have to pedal so much faster to maintain a reasonable speed. By reasonable, I mean something where I'd feel stable. Maybe it's part of not being a good climber, but I don't feel stable going 4mph uphill. I can go 6mph just fine.

Part of what made me unstable at 3+mph on the steep climb I referred to earlier was the force I put on the pedals. Part of it was the feeling that if I let up at all, gravity would instantly stop me because of my lack of momentum and down I'd go. What my friends and teammates told me about gearing made sense in light of all this. You don't want to have to work too hard at either a) spinning faster than you want to or b) putting out more power than (a hypothetical) you can sustain. It seems like with a road bike's light weight and the way it runs (vs. a mtn bike for example), you can avoid both by staying above 1:1 most of the time.

So, by overkill, I meant that the need to easily get some speed (and thus forward momentum) per pedal stroke would outweigh the need for a gear that would require such relatively light force to move. I also don't see where the OP said anything about wanting to do endurance riding and spend hours climbing mountains. She just wanted to make the hills (of whatever sort, she didn't say) she does easier so she can go longer than "a few miles." Clearly, my observation is based on a totally different demographic of cyclists.