Search Results

Purpose: To determine if workload and seasonal periods (preseason vs in season) are associated with the incidence of injuries and illnesses in female professional cyclists. Methods: Session rating of perceived exertion was used to quantify internal workload and was collected from 15 professional female cyclists, from 33 athlete seasons. One week (acute) workload, 4 weeks (chronic) workload, and 3 acute:chronic workload models were analyzed. Two workload models are based on moving averages of the ratios, the acute:chronic workload ratio (ACWR), and the ACWR uncoupled (ACWR_uncoup). The difference between both is the chronic load; in ACWR, the acute load is part of the chronic load, and in ACWR_uncoup, the acute and chronic load are uncoupled. The third workload model is based on exponentially weighted moving averages of the ratios. In addition, the athlete season is divided into the preseason and in season. Results: Generalized estimating equations analysis was used to assess the associations between the workload ratios and the occurrence of injuries and illnesses. High values of acute workload (P = .048), ACWR (P = .02), ACWR_uncoup (P = .02), exponentially weighted moving averages of the ratios (P = .01), and the in season (P = .0001) are significantly associated with the occurrence of injury. No significant associations were found between the workload models, the seasonal periods, and the occurrence of illnesses. Conclusions: These findings suggest the importance of monitoring workload and workload ratios in female professional cyclists to lower the risk of injuries and therefore improve their performances. Furthermore, these results indicate that, in the preseason, additional stressors occur, which could lead to an increased risk of injuries.

Purpose: To describe the record power profile of professional female cyclists and to assess potential differences based on the type of rider. Methods: Power output data (32,028 files containing both training and competition sessions recorded) in 44 female professional cyclists during 1–6 years were analyzed. Cyclists were categorized as all-rounders, time trialists, climbers, or sprinters. The record power profile was calculated using the mean maximal power output (MMP) values attained by each cyclist for different-effort durations (5 s to 60 min) expressed in relative (W·kg⁻¹), as well as absolute, power output (W). Results: Participants’ MMP averaged 15.3 (1.8) W·kg⁻¹ for 5 seconds, 8.4 (0.8) W·kg⁻¹ for 1 minute, 5.2 (0.5) W·kg⁻¹ for 10 minutes, and 4.2 (0.4) W·kg⁻¹ for 60 minutes. For short-duration efforts (5–30 s), sprinters attained the highest MMP results, with significantly higher relative (Hedges g = 1.40–2.31) or absolute (g = 4.48–8.06) values than the remainder of categories or climbers only, respectively. Time trialists attained the highest MMP for longer efforts, with higher relative values than both all-rounders and climbers when comparing efforts lasting 10 to 60 minutes (P < .05, g = 1.21–1.54). Conclusions: In professional female cyclists, the record power profile substantially differs based on the specific category of the rider. These findings provide unique insights into the physical capacities of female professional cyclists, as well as a benchmark for coaches and scientists aiming to identify talent in female cycling.

Purpose: The session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE) is a well-accepted method of monitoring training load in athletes in many different sports. It is based on the category-ratio (0–10) RPE scale (BORG-CR10) developed by Borg. There is no evidence how substitution of the Borg 6–20 RPE scale (BORG-RPE) might influence the sRPE in athletes. Methods: Systematically training, recreational-level athletes from a number of sport disciplines performed 6 randomly ordered, 30-min interval-training sessions, at intensities based on peak power output (PPO) and designed to be easy (50% PPO), moderate (75% PPO), or hard (85% PPO). Ratings of sRPE were obtained 30 min postexercise using either the BORG-CR10 or BORG-RPE and compared for matched exercise conditions. Results: The average percentage of heart-rate reserve was well correlated with sRPE from both BORG-CR10 (r = .76) and BORG-RPE (r = .69). The sRPE ratings from BORG-CR10 and BORG-RPE were very strongly correlated (r = .90) at matched times. Conclusions: Although producing different absolute numbers, sRPE derived from either the BORG-CR10 or BORG-RPE provides essentially interchangeable estimates of perceived exercise training intensity.

Purpose: To present normative data for the record power profile of male professional cyclists attending to team categories and riding typologies. Methods: Power output data registered from 4 professional teams during 8 years (N = 144 cyclists, 129,262 files, and 1062 total seasons [7 (5) per cyclist] corresponding to both training and competition sessions) were analyzed. Cyclists were categorized as ProTeam (n = 46) or WorldTour (n = 98) and as all-rounders (n = 65), time trialists (n = 11), climbers (n = 50), sprinters (n = 11), or general classification contenders (n = 7). The record power profile was computed as the highest maximum mean power (MMP) value attained for different durations (1 s to 240 min) in both relative (W·kg⁻¹) and absolute units (W). Results: Significant differences between ProTeam and WorldTour were found for both relative (P = .002) and absolute MMP values (P = .006), with WT showing lower relative, but not absolute, MMP values at shorter durations (30–60 s). However, higher relative and absolute MMP values were recorded for very short- (1 s) and long-duration efforts (60 and 240 min for relative MMP values and ≥5 min for absolute ones). Differences were also found regarding cyclists’ typologies for both relative and absolute MMP values (P < .001 for both), with sprinters presenting the highest relative and absolute MMP values for short-duration efforts (5–30 s) and general classification contenders presenting the highest relative MMP values for longer efforts (1–240 min). Conclusions: The present results––obtained from the largest cohort of professional cyclists assessed to date—could be used to assess cyclists’ capabilities and indicate that the record power profile can differ between cyclists’ categories and typologies.