Episode Transcript
[00:00:15] Speaker A: Welcome to Shitco Talks, the no Nonsense cycling podcast.
Professional cyclists, especially those who perform extremely well, are often known as role models for work, capacity, motivation or even training characteristics. However, we don't really know whether their training truly allows them to optimize their potential. In order to answer this question, I have invited Gabriele, who is a PhD in sports science, a very prolific researcher with whom I have shared several scientific projects these last years. And he's also the owner of Knowledge is what? Which is one of the most famous websites regarding training in in cycling. First of all, many thanks for accepting my invitation, Gabriele.
[00:01:27] Speaker B: Hi Sebas, and thank you for the invitation and I'm happy to be here with your audience today.
[00:01:36] Speaker A: So the reason you are here today, Gabriele, is because during the last two to three years you have published two very interesting studies in which you assess the training characteristics of a total of five riders who completed a top five result either in the Tour de France or in the Giro d'italia.
First of all, I would like to start with some basic performance characteristics of these riders which the audience, I think may find quite interesting. For example, the VO2 max values were on average between 80 to 83 milliliters per kilogram per minute. The 20 minute maximal power output was between 6.5 to 6.9 watts per kilo. If I remember correctly, under average training volume was 17 hours per week. But we had for example, one rider who performed only 14 hours per week as an average. So before I ask you the main question here, there are like two values for me which are quite surprising. First, at least for me, the average training volume was quite low, at least from what I expected, because I started reading the papers and I said, okay, these are 17 hours, maybe they do like four or five hours of strength training, so this will be 21, but no, it was totalized, so it was quite surprising for me. And also the VO2 max number, which is what you would expect from this kind of very strong riders. But it was quite similar in all cases. And as we know, you can achieve similar results with quite different VO2 max depending on your gross efficiency or optimization of thresholds. So these were the two main things that I found very interesting here. And I wanted to ask you whether was there any kind of relevant point that the audience may find interesting, apart from what I have commented here?
[00:03:43] Speaker B: Yeah, I think what you said is true because especially for the data about training volume, because if you read something about professional cyclist and you see something like about 15 hours per week, it seems very low. But I think we have to keep in mind that it's just an average value. And of all the weeks that were considered, so from January until Giro d'italia or Tour de France, so this is the average that is strongly influenced by weeks with very low volume. So for example, there were minor injuries or health problems. And so there were something like, I can't say exactly the number, but something like six hours or seven hours per week. And these weeks strongly influence the average. So, you know, is in any, in any case, in any science, average data tell not all the story. So this is the thing about wiki volume. So if we consider, let's say the real training weeks, it was higher than the average. So I will say at least 20 and maybe a little bit higher if we, if we exclude these, these weeks with some problem for, let's say injuries, small health problems and also traveling, you know, because sometimes there were races and training camp around the world. So this is the thing about training volume and about physiological data like VO2 max or 20 minute power output. Yeah, that's it. You know, VUE2 max is important, but it's not all for professional athletes. So I think that anything above 80, then you are in the fight to succeed. I will start professional level. And then many other physiological data can influence the final results. For example, I find very interesting that the durability of the rider, so the decrease in 20 minute maximum in power output was very low. So the decrease was very low. So durability was very high. So this is one thing that is very, very important for, to achieve such success for professional road cyclists. So I would highlight durability as one of the main interesting data about these cyclists.
[00:06:24] Speaker A: Would you say with the increasing average power outputs we have seen the last two years in these Grand Tours, would you say that the riders you assessed here would be able to replicate these results in 2024?
[00:06:39] Speaker B: Great question, great question. I think because in this article, in this publication, they were reported as top five and I think they also one of them or two of them was top three. I think that with this number at last Tour de France, that's been very difficult to finish on the podium. Maybe the 6.9 watt per kilo, but not the other, something like 6.5 or 6.6, because Pogachar, Vindegarde, Venepola, I think they are at a higher level now. So maybe for the other grandpus, like zero and Guada, possibly yes, but not for us, because I think that these three riders that I just mentioned are just outlier on professional Sexist level right now.
[00:07:30] Speaker A: It's incredible how fast the numbers are evolving that like papers that have been written two years ago are already outdated in numbers. No, it's incredible.
[00:07:42] Speaker B: Yeah, absolutely, yeah.
[00:07:44] Speaker A: The second question which I think is very relevant here is the training intensity distribution which was mainly pyramidal with like 80 to 90% of time performing zone one. We are talking here of course about the three zone level three, no model. So 80 or to 90% of time was performed in zone one, 6 to 13% in zone two and only 2 to 6% in zone three.
Did you find any kind of difference between competition weeks and recovery or training weeks in this training intensity distribution?
[00:08:27] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, yeah, absolutely. Everything is a great question. And yeah, as you just said, overall, if we consider all the data of all the preparation, the intensity distribution in a three zones model was pyramidal.
But if we, if we look at the weeks with races, so let's say one week races prevalently the distribution was completely, let's say not completely, but different because there was a huge increase in time spent in zone three. So high intensity. And this is because of the competitive nature of races. So in these weeks there was a huge increase in this time spent at high intensity. So let's say it was something like a sort of block periodization. So pyramidal distribution with maybe a little bit of increasing intensity through the weeks when the weeks were just about training and then a huge increase in high intensity in times spent at high intensity when one week races were performed. So I just at the beginning progressing even within a pyramidal intensity distribution and then a block of high intensity with the one week races. Of course, even within the one week races the distribution was between pyramidal and polarized. But I think this is just a terminology point of view. But if we look at the data, there was a huge increase in high intensity time spent at high intensity. And so I think we can say that the periodization was block periodization. Because of this.
[00:10:19] Speaker A: Would you say that at any point in time time performed at zone 3 was superior to time performed at zone 2?
[00:10:30] Speaker B: I can't remember exactly, but during the races, one week races, at some point it was likely that there was even some more time spent in at intensity compared to medium. So in zone two in a three zones model.
But for me the remarkable data is the huge increase. So just a part of pyramidal polarization. If we just have a look at the absolute time spent in zones, for me a huge increase in time spent at intensity is a relevant data for let's say a physiological stimulus to the body.
[00:11:05] Speaker A: One of the other factors that for me seemed quite novel was the time spent at altitude. Because if we assess all the data from all the five riders, we can see that two of them did not perform any altitude training.
And from the other three, one of them only spent 14 days at altitude when preparing for this race.
I don't remember if it was the Giro or the Tour, but given the vast amount of evidence that we have regarding altitude training, and not only central, but also, it seems, peripheral adaptations, doesn't it seem weird that almost half of them did not perform altitude training or did not do it as it is suggested by science?
[00:11:59] Speaker B: Yeah, I think it's an interesting point and I think that here it's important to highlight that maybe as you mentioned before, case studies in sports science like this just reported what let's say successful cyclists or successful endurance athletes did. But this is not, it is not 100% sure that this is the best approach to obtain the best performance. So this is just what they did. And of course, you know why they did not perform best practice attitude training, because a lot of factors were involved. Something also about logistic rider preferences.
So these were the main two factors. And sometimes I think that on the field in Idaho sports, best practice sometimes are in conflict with rider preferences and other factors that can influence the, the decision about a training or environmental decision like altitude. So I think this is the reason why.
[00:13:11] Speaker A: Okay, Something similar can be said about strength training because in all three riders who did the Giro, they did not perform any kind of strength training during the year. And the both riders that did the Tour de France only did it do during the preseason in November and December, which is again, quite different from what is suggested by science, especially given that, you know, the training volume that they reported seems quite okay if you want to combine it with strength training. No, and what was quite interesting here is that the motivation behind the lack of strength training was unwillingness to follow the coach's advice.
[00:14:02] Speaker B: So, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
[00:14:03] Speaker A: So this is quite, quite, quite shocking at a professional level to hear that.
[00:14:08] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, absolutely, yeah. And yeah, I think that about strength training, the reason why is the same of altitude training. So again, rider preferences, logistics are the main reason why I think best practice strength training, best practice was not thought of by these riders.
And yeah, I think that's it. That of course you have the, let's say, control training studies that show something and then the challenge is to apply and also to convince riders to follow, let's say, a protocol or Something like this. And it's not always easy.
But then you know that sometimes also controlled training studies are.
Because. Because they are controlled training studies. They have a little bit different scenario compared to professional cyclists. Also about training load outside strength training. So usually you know strength training studies are performed. Yes, sometimes also with a good training volume. But is. Yeah, 1012 and mainly in the preparatory period and maybe. And in the control studies the training on the bike was predominantly low intensity training. While in these professional cyclists they were. They have also to combine strength training with a lot of high intensity training. Like in one week races. And they have to recover after the races they have a medium intensity. So yeah, this is one reason. But the main reasons are the same about attitude training. So logistics and the rider habits and preferences.
[00:15:58] Speaker A: Based on all of these studies and what you have found in other studies, would you say that these top riders perform preference rather than evidence based training?
[00:16:14] Speaker B: Yeah, I think that the true is in the middle. So they did something that is evidence based. Something like increasing the intensity through the periodization and some kind of block periodization. So let's say for periodization on the bike best practice is often followed by. Was often followed by this rider. But it was not for altitude training, strength training. But also if we. We can say also about HIIT training because they did not perform any heat training. But this is a more recent stories why the data were about five years ago or something like this. So maybe this is the reason why. So I think as always the truth is in the middle that you have a lot of evidence based practice and then you have to bring this on the field and apply what you can apply and what the athletes are willing are willing to apply, try to persuade them and then try to find the best solution that sometimes is in the middle.
[00:17:23] Speaker A: During the study, did you recover data specifically regarding on bike strength training like torque training or low cadence intervals? Do you know if they performed it?
[00:17:32] Speaker B: No, no, no, we did not perform this kind of analysis.
[00:17:39] Speaker A: Okay.
And the main question after all of this data for me will be because as I said in the introduction, most people are reading articles about what the pros are doing. And you know, you can, for example, in trial running, you can read articles of what kind of training performs Killian drop met and he will say that he runs four hours each morning.
And the question that arises here for me is do are they really a good option to imitate by a normal athlete or a normal cyclist who wants to reach the top level?
And given what we have seen in your studies, I think that we can say that there's at least a significant part of survival bias here in which you know, these guys are extremely talented, may not perform totally according to the evidence and still be in the top. And you don't know what will happen with another 5,000 guys who attempted to do the same stuff as they do.
[00:18:50] Speaker B: No, yeah, yeah, I think it's a good point.
As I said before, there is something, some principle that can be taken also by amateur cyclists and something that was not following best practice because of rider preferences, logistics and other things. But I think something is still relevant. Something like pyramidal intensity distribution with a large proportion of low intensity. I think this is a good point that everyone can apply to his own training plan. Then again, the periodization, I think it was pretty good. So following best practice, something like progressive overload, for what concern intensity. So during training weeks progressing let's say from more zone 2 in a 3 zones model to more zone 3 always freedoms model. So progressing from medium to high intensity through training weeks. I think this is another good point. And also let's say when you finish this, when you arrive with a consistency 9 intensity, maybe to maintain progressive overload you have to put some block to continue to, to give a stimulus to the body. In this case it was done with one week races. But for example, an amateur cyclist can do it in his own training because usually they don't perform. They don't perform one week crisis. So just performing something like four or even five one hour intensity training sessions. Just like a kind of block of intensity training. So I think from periodization we have some good data with that, have some good principle that everyone can apply and less forward concerns strength training and altitude training.
[00:20:42] Speaker A: And also I think that for me a very relevant point here is the average training because if an amateur rider reads these papers and see the 15 or 17 hours per week, say okay, I can imitate that. But the reality is that they, you know, the true training weeks are over 20 hours. No? So you know, it's a good reality check for the weekend warrior who won't have this time to train and you know, achieve the stimulus.
[00:21:12] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, absolutely. And yeah, I agree with this. And also for what concern everything.
If you compare a 5 hour week and a 15 hour per week and then you try to put something in, it's not the same. So also keep in mind this. So for example, also tapering because you know that usually the recommendation, I can't remember the exact percentage, but it's just decrease volume about 30% or something like this. But you know, it's not the same 30% of 30 hours week and a 30% of five hours per week. So you have always to keep in mind the bigger picture and the general context when you read professional cyclist training plan and trying to apply on your own. If you are time crunched or amateur cyclist with a 5 or 10 hours per week training.
[00:22:08] Speaker A: Yeah. And this, this also applies to, to, to training distribution. Because if, if an amateur sees like a 6% in, in zone three, he can say oh, that's not a lot, but it's 6% out of 20 hours.
[00:22:20] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:22:21] Speaker A: So it's still quite a lot of time at intensity of VO2max or glycolytical intensity. So for a normal athlete.
[00:22:28] Speaker B: Yeah, well, yeah, because also. Yeah, this is right. And also if we compare for example about this, if we compare for example U19 or union riders intensity distribution with a professional one, of course the percentage of intensity is higher because overall training volume is low. So always keep in mind the context when you read something about intensity distribution. Yeah.
[00:22:53] Speaker A: If you had to define the characteristics of a top level pro from all we have said here from your studies, what will it be? Durability.
[00:23:05] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, yeah, absolutely. I think that the more remarkable, the most remarkable data is durability. And yeah, I think this is a very interesting also area about sports science research in sports science that next year also now is very hot topic and also in the, in the next years will be a very relevant one because we know something, something that could be related to fuel selection or something like trying to spare as much glycogen as possible.
But it's something that is not very clear now. So I think that understanding this athletes so they have exceptional durability. If we can understand the physiological mechanism behind this, then we can also improve it. And I think yes, because you know, I think that I don't know but at least more than 50% of the professional peloton have more than 80s VO2 max and they have 82, 83, 84. So not exceptional. So I think what they have more is one factor is durability. Of course.
Okay.
[00:24:16] Speaker A: So I think that the key takeaway from this chapter is that it is good to see and assess what the top level pros are doing, but it is not necessarily the best idea for the amateur to try to replicate that in his or her training. No.
[00:24:32] Speaker B: Yeah, absolutely. Yes. Always keep in mind the context when you read something, especially in this case trying to apply copy and past professional cyclists workouts and planning to eight or seven hours week.
Okay. Gabriel.
[00:24:49] Speaker A: So I will attach to the chapter description the links to both papers and also to your knowledge, is what website so people can follow your work. Again, many thanks for accepting the invitation. I think that's been straight to the point and very interesting talk and I'm sure you will be invited to the next season to talk a little bit more about the training characteristics of these guys.
[00:25:13] Speaker B: Yeah.
Thank you. And very happy to be here again in the future.
