Differences in Training Characteristics Between Junior, Under 23 and Professional Cyclists

Abstract

The aim was to compare the training characteristics of junior, under 23 and professional road cyclists. Training data collected during the 2019 competitive season of thirty male cyclists, divided into three age-related categories (JUN; U23; PRO), were retrospectively analyzed for training characteristics, external and internal training load. Higher duration per training session were observed in PRO (2.6 ± 0.3 h) compared to both U23 (2.2 ± 0.3 h; P < 0.001) and JUN (2.0 ± 0.2 h; P < 0.001). Elevation gain per distance was higher in PRO (13.8 ± 1.9 m⋅km-1) compared to U23 (10.6 ± 0.9 m⋅km-1; P = 0.001) and JUN (6.7 ± 0.3 m⋅km-1; P < 0.001), and in U23 compared to JUN (P < 0.001). Annual total work was lower in JUN (3694 ± 467 kJ⋅kg-1) compared to U23 (5268 ± 746 kJ⋅kg-1; P = 0.001) and PRO (5759 ± 1103 kJ⋅kg-1; P < 0.001). eTRIMP per hour was higher in JUN (151 ± 40) compared to both U23 (115 ± 23; P = 0.003) and PRO (112 ± 22; P = 0.013). JUN spent more training time at medium and high heart rate intensity zones compared to U23 and PRO (P < 0.05).

Development of Cycling Performance Variables and Durability in Female and Male National Team Cyclists: From Junior to Senior

“…However, whether the differences between the age-groups in the present study would have been more pronounced with a larger external energy expenditure remains speculative. Improved durability is possibly related to increased and consistent training loads over several years (42), also reflecting the increasing demands of cycling competitions from junior to U23 and senior levels (43). This is supported in a recent study that highlights a positive relationship between total training time spent at low intensities (i.e., below ventilatory threshold 1) and improvements in performance in the semifatigued state (29), which is in line with our general finding that the decrease in power from W max to 5-min test in a semifatigued state decreases with age.…”

It Is Possible to Measure the Internal Training Load Of Resistance Athlete Using the Etrimp Method

“…The eTRIMP use also was demonstrated in the comparison maximal oxygen consumption into athletes [5]. Besides that, eTRIMP has been used to compare the training characteristics of junior and professional athletes divided into age-related categories [6]. A prospective cohort study dose-response relationship between training load and anaerobic performance in female athletes suggested a curvilinear relationship the variance in changes of peak power output to eTRIMP method during a competition [7].…”

Training Characteristics, Performance, and Body Composition of Three U23 Elite Female Triathletes throughout a Season

“…Examples include the preparation of three top-five cyclists for the Giro d’Italia [ 8 ], the training intensity distribution in world-class middle- and long-distance runners [ 12 ], and the training program of a world-class triathlete preparing for the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games [ 9 ]. However, several studies have also been published using data from full seasons or prolonged training periods in elite junior and U23 athletes [ 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 ]. For example, Leo et al [ 11 ] observed how training characteristics varied across a competitive season and how they were related to the changes in the power profiles of elite U23 cyclists.…”

“…For example, Leo et al [ 11 ] observed how training characteristics varied across a competitive season and how they were related to the changes in the power profiles of elite U23 cyclists. For their part, Gallo et al [ 14 ] compared training characteristics during the competitive season between junior, U23, and elite cyclists. These data can be of great interest because they can help coaches orient the training of athletes toward high performance in the elite category.…”