In this series of articles and emails I have argued that:
…as a cyclists, you need a well-tuned aerobic engine regardless of what discipline you ride
…you can develop this aerobic engine by doing your majority of training as low intensity, and with smaller and regular amounts of high (and moderate) intensity training
…and finally, the intensity and format of your interval training should be tailored to meet your racing requirements (at least for some parts of the training year).
In this article, we take a closer look at an additional consideration in deciding on your use of different interval formats – namely your individual physiological strengths and weaknesses.
Let us start by reviewing the test data of some historically strong Grand Tour riders – Chris Froome and Thibault Pinot.
The power data of Chris Froome
In 2015, a few weeks after winning his second Tour de France, Chris Froome underwent a series of physiological tests.
The authors of the study reveal the following physiological properties (1):
- VO2 max: 84 ml/min/kg
- Peak power output: 525 W (7.5 W/kg)
- Power at 2 mmol/L lactate: 390 W (5.4 W/kg)
- Power at 4 mmol/L lactate: 430 W (6.1 W/kg)
- Body fat 9.5%
- Gross efficiency 23.6%
At the point of testing, Froome himself reported having gained approximately 3-4 kilos over the weeks since completing the Tour de France. Which suggests the above power to weight ratios are probably lower than what he was racing with during the TdF.
The authors highlight the significance of Froome’s data:
The values for peak power output, VO2 max, submaximal power outputs, and gross efficiency are among the highest reported for professional road cyclists.
Bell et al. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2016
Particularly interesting is Froome’s combination of a very high VO2 max combined with a strong gross efficiency.
Gross efficiency is a measure of how much of the expended energy is actually being utilized in producing forces into the pedals. The higher this percentage, the less energy is being “wasted”.
Interestingly, VO2 max and gross efficiency has been found to be inversely related. In other words, high VO2 max values are associated with poor gross efficiency. Or vice versa.
It has been hypothesized that a high efficiency might compensate for a relatively low VO2 peak.
Bell et al. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2016
Chris Froome appears to possess a rare combination of a top-shelf power to weight output over shorter and longer durations periods (VO2 max & submaximal aerobic capacity) as well as the ability to keep energy expenditure during riding to an absolute minimum (gross efficiency = miles to the gallon).
He has got the best of both worlds.
The 6-year monitoring of a top-10 Grand Tour finisher: Thibault Pinot
The French cyclist Tibault Pinot too is an accomplished rider in the general classifications of the Grand Tours.
Although somewhat shy of the results of Froome, the data of Pinot too provides some interesting insight into the spectacular capacity of professional road cyclists.
During his very successful 2013 season, Pinot produced the following results (2):
- VO2 max: 85 ml/min/kg
- 5 second MMP: 18.1 W/kg
- 1 minute MMP: 10.5 W/kg
- 5 minute MMP: 7.2 W/kg
- 60 min MMP: 5.7 W/kg
By comparison, the test results of these two general classification riders correlate fairly well.
Pinot’s VO2 max, 5 minute MMP and 60 minute MMP correlates fairly well with Froome’s VO2 max (84 ml/min/kg), peak power (7.5 W/kg) and power at 4 mmol/L lactate (6.2 W/kg).
A noteworthy feature of Pinot’s power output records (MMP) is his exceptional fatigue resistance.
His 60 minute power of 5.7 W/kg is impressive in itself. However, even more impressive is the fact that he is able to maintain outputs close to this value for several hours. As demonstrated by his 2, 3 and 4 hour records (6):
- 60 min MMP: 5.7 W/kg
- 2 hour MMP: 5.0 W/kg
- 3 hour MMP: 4.9 W/kg
- 4 hour MMP: 4.9 W/kg
In my opinion, this highlights one of the key traits of successful endurance athletes – they got top-of-the-shelf VO2 max values (strong 5-20 min punch) combined with exceptional cycling economy at lower intensities (high mean power across 2-5 hours with strong fuel saving).
You probably see how these traits set Froome and Pinot up as contenders in Grand Tour general classifications.
They have great energy conservation and thereby arrive in the late stage of races with more matches to burn than the competition. And then you add their top-shelf maximal aerobic performance.
This combination effectively allows them to outperform the competition in the mountains (at least it did so when they were in their prime years).
5 specific rider types and their anthropometrics
Let us continue our search for understanding how to tailor your training by reviewing different types of cyclists and their characteristics.
There is no denying the fact that certain body types seem more favorable in terms of road cycling performance than others.
The physical attributes of road cyclists are well documented.
Typically, riders are classified into either category depending on their skills, which is in turn influenced by their body type (3):
- Flat terrain riders
- Uphill riders
- All terrain riders
- Time trial specialists
- Sprinters
Flat terrain riders do their work mainly on the flats.
According to Mujika and Padilla these tend to stand approximately 182-190 cm tall, weigh 73-79 kg and produce power outputs at 4 mmol/l lactate (often considered approximately anaerobic threshold) in the range of 372-462 watt (5.1-5.9 W/kg).
Uphill riders have their strengths in the hills.
They tend to be shorter (168-182 cm) and lighter (65-71 kg) than the other specialists. According to Mujika & Padilla they produce 315-397 watt (5.2-6.2 W/kg) at 4 mmol/l lactate.
Time trialists specialize and excel in individual time trial races.
These riders are reported with heights of 176-189 cm and a body weight of 66-77 kg. They are reported to produce 363-455 watt (5.5-5.9 W/kg) at 4 mmol/l lactate.
All terrain riders perform reasonably well in all parts of the cycling course. They appear to be a blend of the uphill riders and the TT specialists.
Body heights are reported in the medium range of 178-182 cm and body weights of 65-71 kg. Similarly, in terms of approximate threshold power values they are “middle of the pack” with 328-404 watt (5.0-5.8 W/kg).
Sprinters have yet to be characterized by their physical attributes in a similar fashion as the above. However, a quick look at the great sprinters of recent years will reveal significant variation from the bigger and heavier riders like Kittel, Greipel and Hushovd, to the short and light sprinters of Cavendish, McEwan and their likes.
Sprinters are of course characterized by their abilities to produce immensely high power outputs over a short period of time.
Time trial specialists have an all-over edge
All in all, flat terrain specialists have the highest absolute powers and VO2 max values. Yet, they are closely followed by the time trial specialists (3).
However, when scaling in relation to body weight the uphill specialists show the highest power and VO2 max values. Again, closely followed by the time trial specialists.
Mujika and Padilla conclude that this provides the time trialists an edge in terms of overall performance.
“…time trial specialists had an overall performance advantage over the other groups in all cycling terrains.
– Mujika & Padilla, Sports Medicine 2001
The fact that time trialists have an edge in overall performance may come as a surprise to some.
But when you think of the performances of the likes of Tom Dumolin (TT world champion, Giro d’Italia winner, TdF GC podiums) and Chris Froome (Olympic TT bronze medal, multiple TdF wins), both brilliant time trialists and general classification riders this conclusion holds up.
Attributes besides height and weight
The individual traits that make up your strengths and weaknesses as a rider are far from limited to your height and weight.
Of great importance is your genetic predisposition for developing your VO2 max as well as your distribution of muscle fiber types.
These, along with other factors will contribute towards your power:duration curve.
The relationship between your power output across different effort durations goes a long way in demonstrating your strengths and weaknesses a cyclist.
Typically, most riders will aim to elevate their power curve in general through generic aerobic training (high volumes of easy LIT rides and smaller volumes of HIT or MIT work).
You can then further target specific durations of relevance to your style of racing and work specifically on boosting your power across that interval.
Your muscle fiber types impact recovery and scheduling
Interestingly, your distribution of muscle fiber types may play a big role in how to best go about your training.
This is something that coaches in the field have reporting for years, and that has now been further supported by research.
Recent studies suggest that your distribution of fast and slow twitch muscle fibers impact how long it takes you to recover from training (4-5). The results suggest that athletes with high proportions of fast twitch fibers need longer time to recover compared to predominantly slow twitch athletes.
Bellinger found that when exposing athletes to a three-week overload training program (130% of normal training volume) more fast twitch athletes got overreached compared to slow twitch athletes.
Think about the implications this has for your scheduling of high intensity training, strength work, tapering strategy and planning your racing season.
Summary
This brief lesson highlights how different body types allows for different strengths and weaknesses on the bike.
The point I am trying to get across is that your physiological traits and racing abilities are intertwined.
How your are built impacts your strengths and weaknesses in different styles of racing. And your preferred style of racing in turn impacts how you should be training.
And finally, your make-up of different muscle fibers impacts how much training you can easily absorb and how quickly you recover from it.
Neither of the above override the need for consistent and basic training with long endurance rides and regular HIT (and/or MIT) intervals.
But you now probably see how tailoring your training to your individual traits can greatly benefit your training response.
In the next email I will present a framework for how to go about creating a self-enhancing training process that considers both scientific evidence as well as your individual strengths, weaknesses and ambitions.
References:
- Bell PG et al. The physiological profile of a multiple Tour de France winning cyclist. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2017;49(1):115-123
- Pinot J and Grappe F. A six-year monitoring case study of a top-10 cycling Grand Tour finisher. Journal of Sports Sciences, 2015;33(9):907-914
- Mujika I and Padilla S. Physiological and performance characteristics of male professional road cyclists. Sports Medicine, 2001;31(7)
- Lievens E et al. Muscle fiber typology substantially influences time to recover from high-intensity exercise. Journal of Applied Physiology, 2020;128(3):648-659
- Bellinger P et al. Muscle fiber typology is associated with the incidence of overreaching in response to overload training, 2020;129(4):823-836