It’s not everyday you get a detailed look at how the best professional cyclists train.
There are several books written on how to plan and structure your cycling training. But up until recently, there was surprisingly little published literature on how the best professional cyclists scheduling their training.
More to the point, are they following the common training and periodisation advice that you’re so used to hearing?
“Start by building a base. Then add volume. Then add intensity. Then taper. And so on…”
A team of sport scientists decided to look into this matter. Their efforts resulted in three papers dissecting the training of top of the shelf professional cyclists (we’re talking top-5 and top-3 GC finishers in Giro d’Italia and Tour de France).
It started with an interesting paper by Gallo and colleagues’ in 2022.
Illustration photo: Annie Postma / Shutterstock.com
The training of top 5 Giro d’Italia finishers
Gallo and his team retrospectively examined daily power data from 3 cyclists in the 5 months leading into Giro d’Italia (1). All riders finished top-5 in the General Classification and boasted VO2 max values of 80-82 ml/min/kg.
In other words, some of the world’s finest GC riders.
To make sense of this study, you need to appreciate how they dealt with exercise intensity.
How did they measure intensity?
The authors analysed training data retrospectively. As such, they only had power data to work with (no lab). Therefore, the authors used a pragmatic approach to power zones. They used a 3-zone intensity system, as commonly seen in the cycling science literature.
The zones were based on FTP, which was estimated by multiplying each cyclist’s highest 20 minute average power by a factor of 0.95.
The zones were defined as follows:
- Zone 1 (LOW): <85% of FTP
- Zone 2 (MED): 85-100% of FTP
- Zone 3 (HIGH): >100% of FTP
According to the lead author, the cut-off between zone 1 and 2 was decided based on previous studies suggesting that VT1/LT1 occurs at approximately 85% of the power of VT2/LT2 – which in turn is relatively close to FTP (crude comparison).
How much did they train?
The average weekly training volume of the riders ranged from 15 to 20 hours per week.
If you are surprised by the lower end of this range, you’re not alone. When I asked Gallo about this, he explained that this average value also encompassed the very early phase of base training, with a relatively lower training volume. As well as also containing periods with illness and/or injuries.
Granted, the biggest training weeks of the 3 riders involved 28-34 training hours.
What training intensity do professional cyclists use?
As you may have learned to expect, the cyclists displayed an overall pyramidal distribution of training intensity (1).
This means they did the majority of their training in zone 1 (LOW). With considerably less training in zone 2 (MED) and even less training time in zone 3 (HIGH).
The total time of training and racing was distributed as follows:
- Zone 1: 84-91%
- Zone 2: 7-11%
- Zone 3: 2-6%
Of note, if you excluded race time, the percentage of time spent on low intensity was even higher than the numbers given above.
Indeed, during race periods the volume of work performed at high intensity increased. This lead to an increase in polarisation in periods with racing. The authors refer to this practice as “high intensity race-based block periodisation”. Of note, this practice included almost exclusive use of stage races, as opposed to one-day races.
In other words, the riders seemingly put the principle of specificity to use – by using secondary races that mimiced the requirements of consecutive race days seen in the Grand Tours.
Interestingly, the riders expressed that they found it easier to accumulate volumes of high intensity during racing as compared to during training. Arguably, due to the added motivation that arise when racing.
Perhaps something for amateur cyclists to consider during prolonged periods of monotenous training? (add some races to the mix to avoid burning out mentally)
What periodisation did they use?
One rider use the traditional linear periodisation of his annual training.
In other words, he used a high volume phase with pyramidal intensity distribution initially. Then, he progressively added volume, before reducing volume and adding more medium and high intensity work before the first race period (1).
Notably, this rider had a late start to his race season.
The other two riders started racing at a much earlier stage of the year. Consequently, their periodisation was characterised by “high intensity race-based block periodisation” from an early stage in the season.
Which of the two periodisation format is better?
Unfortunately, that is impossible to say based on 3 cases alone. However, we can probably suggest that both styles of periodisations led to strong performances (top-5 GC in the Giro). Furthermore, the authors do acknowledge that the rider with linear periodisation performed his best GC result of the year during the Giro, whereas that was not the case for the other two riders.
The graphs with the specifics of their training is freely available in the open access paper by Gallo et al. You can download Gallo’s paper here.
How did they taper for their peaking protocols?
Interestingly, the last few weeks of training before the Giro deviated somewhat from the tapering protocols suggested by the existing literature.
The typical recommendations is to reduce volume with 40-60% in the last 1-2 weeks before a main competition (2).
Whereas the three Giro riders reduced their volume in the final two weeks with 7-64% and 8-21%, respectively.
This discrepancy from published recommendations could have several potential causes.
For a start, two of the riders spent the final build up to the taper on altitude camps. Here, they did almost exclusively high volumes of low intensity training. It makes sense that this could call for a different taper strategy than someone doing lots of intensity work during their build-up to the taper.
Secondly, most recommendations on taper protocols are based on one-day races. It’s quite possible that the optimal taper for a 3-week stage race could differ from a one-day race.
An absence of strength training
Interestingly, none of the riders performed any strength training during this training period. This despite the intention of their coaches for them to do strength training.
While this study provided interesting insight into the practices of world-class Grand Tour cyclists, Gallo and colleagues decided to dig deeper into the periodisation question.
And so they did with their next paper.
What does the weekly periodisation of top-5 Tour de France finishers look like?
In their next study, they followed two cyclists for 27 and 35 weeks leading into their top-5 GC results in Tour de France (3).
Again, they analysed power data retrospectively with the same 3-zone system of exercise intensity.
Interestingly, training volume and distribution of training intensity closely resembled that of their first study. An average weekly training volume of approximately 20 hours and an overall pyramidal distribution of intensity.
If anything, this study confirmed many of the observations from the first study.
Again there was a clear use of race periods with added high intensity, serving as blocks of higher intensity, in between the regular pyramidal training.
A novel observation was made in the periods between racing. Between race periods, training followed a pyramidal distribution of intensity. However, whenever they did not race for 4 weeks, the use of intensity became more polarised in the later stages of the non-racing period.
In other words, they still training pyramidal, but as the weeks went along, the use of intensity increased relatively to the past weeks.
This time, the involved cyclists did use strength training in the November and December period. However, they deviated from literature recommendations in that they did no maintenance strength work for the remainder of their preparations.
With these data in hand, Gallo and colleagues decided to zoom in on periodisation patterns even more closely.
This resulted in a third paper.
The weekly periodisation of a top-3 Giro d’Italia finisher
Once again, the authors examined power data for 152 days leading into Giro d’Italia (4). This time, the study subject was a single rider who finished top-3 in the general classification.
The increased focus on day-to-day patterns allowed the authors to make another interesting observation.
Big – (big) – easy days
This riders used a very clear pattern of alternating “hard” and “easy” days.
During training, he never had more than 2 consecutive days where he accumulated more than 3000 kJ or applied an important amount of MED or HIGH intensity.
When I first read this, I was instantly curious as to what this translates to in my own training. So going through my Strava records, Strava tells me I’m accumulating roughly 3000 kJ during a typical 5 hours low intensity ride (I’m around 85 kg). Considering, I’m in no way a professional cyclist.
Furtermore, every time the rider used 1-2 consecutive days with 3000 kJ or more, the next day never exceeded 2500 kJ. Nor did it include a significant amount of MED or HIGH intensity.
Put simply: After every 1-2 big days, always a relatively easy day! *
* The exception from this practice was of course stage-races.
Intensity during long rides
A second novel observation was the fact that this rider performed a significant amount of zone 2 (MED) and zone 3 (HIGH) training during long rides (4 hours or more).
The authors argue that this could potentially be an effective strategy for improving durability. As you probably know by know, durability is an important determinant for success in road cycling.
However, they also state that the effectiveness of intensity in long rides needs to be compared to the traditional “rested” interval sessions in future studies.
Higher loads means more short rides
Interestingly, higher training loads were accompanied by an increased frequency of shorter training rides (< 2 hours) with little or no zone 2 (MED) or zone 3 (HIGH) intensity.
So it would appear as the athlete took on greater training loads, he also ensured his easy days were indeed sufficiently easy.
Caveats
It’s important to remind you what you can and cannot take away from studies on isolated cases like the above papers.
Case studies can be used to demonstrate how the best do in fact train. They can be used to spark meaningful discussion. They may highlight areas of research that needs looking into.
But they cannot prove the superiority of any training method.
Simply put: This is what the best do. We can assume it’s probably working quite well. But we cannot say for certain that it is the best way of training.
An interview with the lead author
In March 2024, I was fortunate enough to have a sit-down with Gabriele Gallo and pick his brain regarding these studies.
The session resulted in a 50 minute video interview with some neat insight into his interpretation of their results.
You can view the entire interview below.
Summary of take-aways
Collectively, the three papers we have just discussed add to our understanding of how some of the best Grand Tour GC cyclists in the world train for their prioritised races.
More specifically, they appear to solidify certain training concepts that are already well-known and widely practiced. Meanwhile also shedding light on where the practices of elite cyclists differ from established literature recommendations.
If anything, the keen amateur cyclist can probably take comfort in the relatively “simple” training practices of world class Grand Tour riders, including:
1 | A relatively high training volume (15-20 hours/week on average)
2 | A pyramidal distribution of exercise intensity. Between 80-90% of power data in the low intensity range (take into account total training volume).
3 | Either traditional linear periodisation or high intensity race-based block periodisation.
4 | The application of specificity by attending several secondary races that mimics the prioritised race goal of the season.
5 | Added use of intensity (increased polarisation index) as the weeks went by during between-race training periods
6 | Considerable use of intensity during longer rides. Potentially contributing towards developing the durability needed in road cycling?
7 | Always an “easy” day after 1-2 “big” training days(!) This with the exception of stage-races. I’m thinking this is a huge take-away point for eager amateurs.
8 | Tapers takes context into consideration. The nature of your build-up to the taper will probably dictate what a purposeful taper looks like.
References:
- Gallo G et al. How do world class top 5 Giro d’Italia finishers train? A qualitative multiple case study. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 2022;00:1-9
- Bosquet L et al. Effects of tapering on performance: a meta-analysis. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 2007;39:1358-1365
- Gallo G et al. The weekly periodization of top 5 Tour de France general classification finishers: A multiple case study. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2023;18(11):1313-1320
- Gallo G et al. The day-by-day periodization strategie sof a Giro d’Italia podium finisher. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2024 (online ahead of print)