I'm a Performance Scientist! (Quick introductions)

Performance
1

Hello everyone!

I’m Jon, and I’m a performance scientist.

I have a Ph.D. in exercise physiology and I’ve working in professioanal cycling for 15-years. Currently, I work for the Alpecin-Deceuninck, focusing on optimising performance through science and analytics.

I have lots to share from the lab and the road, but I’m also keen to learn from you all—your experiences and questions add real value to a forum like this. I’m looking forward to discussing performance!

Thanks,

– Jon

:backhand_index_pointing_right: PS. I offer private consultations - send me a DM.

61 Likes
2

Wow that’s amazing. Thanks for joining in and taking part!

2 Likes
3

Welcome Jon and look forward to your insights! :slightly_smiling_face:

2 Likes
4

Hey Jon, fantastic to have someone with your expertise on here! I look forward to learning from you and the other members.

Since you seem to be putting yourself out there for questions, maybe I can start with an absolute classic (inspired in part by Nico Roche’s commentary on the Tour stage this morning): What’s your opinion on Z2/polarized vs. sweet spot-based training? Caveat I’d apply: For athletes with 7-10h/wk to train and in particular time limits on weekdays, ie tough to do 2h+ workouts outside the weekend. How would you distribute intensity vs. load for such athletes?

Obviously many individual considerations, but I’d love to hear your general thoughts on polarized vs. threshold/sweet spot. Thanks!

3 Likes
5

Hey Teddy, I think you’re asking the right question, but perhaps not considering the solution in the right way.

In my opinion, we start with the athlete, their particular strengths and weaknesses, and their future goals. What is it about them that needs to improve the most? Where are the low-hanging fruit? How have they been training to date, and have they exhausted the potential gains from that approach.

Once we understand the athlete, we consider the types of individual sessions that make the most sense for them. We then tailor those types of sessions to fit their ability level (power, reps, etc) and their ability to recover and adapt to the sessions. For most people, there might be two or three key sessions per week. One or two would be hard intervals, and at least one (ideally two or more) would likely be longer sessions.

Regarding training intensity, we all probably need a bit of everything. But we can’t do everything well, at the same time. So, we need to periodize training over time - the traditional base, build, race, recover approach works, but it’s not the only answer.

Once you’ve built the plan, you can then look to see if it’s polarised, pyramidal or whatever. However, the structure is a consequence of selecting the right sessions for the athlete – NOT – shoehorning in sessions to fit the model.

Finally, for time-limited athletes, increasing precision in their training is critical. If you have two hours for an endurance ride, do you spend every minute of that ride at the right intensity? If we look critically at ride data – NO is the common answer. Most get about 50% right, with a lot above and a fair amount not pedalling.

We’re just scraping the tip of the iceberg, of course.

20 Likes
6

Thank you, Jon. I’m here to share, and to learn too. I’m keen for good discussions.

7

Hey Jon,

Is it true that VdP’s numbers aren’t that spectacular compared to his WT level peers, he just has exceptional durability?

I honestly forget who said it from the Alpecin-Deceuninck staff, but it was an interesting piece of info (or mindgames :wink:)

Understand you probably can’t give us actual data but maybe some more thoughts on durability as a metric

8

The goal is to win races, and usually the critical moments are towards the end of a race. What i think is remarkable, is his ability to be at his best on the days thatreally matter.

10 Likes
9

OK, this is too good an opportunity to pass up, and I could probably ask questions of you all day long Jon! But I will start with one that the discussion of MvdP triggered: any advice on how to train the ability to do a maximal effort in the middle of a sustained (high level) effort. So let’s say my FTP is 250, and I am riding up a hill at FTP. And my nemesis passes me with an attack and I want to attack back, so I attack at 350w for a minute. But when I try to go back to my FTP for the rest of the climb, man, that’s hard. I can’t sustain it. The effort at 350 means now I can only hold on at 200w for a few minutes until I recover. The traditional answer is: over/unders. Train intervals at 95% of FTP, then do 105%, then back to 95%. (Or the more diabolical 95, 100, 105, 100, 95s). Any thoughts on how to do this better? And what frequency of this sort of training a very fit middle aged athlete can endure? (I find over unders hard, and harder to recover from in terms of fatigue the next day.) All this because I think one of MvdP’s strengths is his ability to ride near/at FTP, then do some crazy attack at 150-200% of FTP (or whatever, I doubt you can/will divulge) then return to near/at FTP for another 30 km…

2 Likes
10

Thanks for an interesting question — let’s break it down using your numbers.

If we assume your FTP represents your maximal sustainable aerobic work rate (what I refer to as “Critical Power”, or CP), then CP = 250 watts.

Now, if you can only hold 200 watts after a 1-minute all-out effort at 350 watts — which you say fully depletes your anaerobic capacity — that might suggest your CP (FTP) estimate is a bit too high. But that’s a side point.

Let’s calculate your "anaerobic work capacity’, W′ [pronounced “W-Prime”]

W′ = (P - CP) × t = (350 - 250) × 60 = 6,000 joules = 6 kJ

Respectfully, 6 kJ is quite low — typical W′ values for adult males are often in the range of 15–20 kJ, and slightly lower for females. But let’s continue with your numbers.

You didn’t mention the length of the climb, so let’s assume it’s 10 minutes. Is a 1-minute maximal effort at the start optimal? Probably not — as you noted, you’d likely need to back off for a few minutes to recover.

Instead, imagine you spread your W′ evenly across the whole climb. You could ride at 260 watts (10 watts above CP) for the full 10 minutes — that’s a smoother and more sustainable effort.

You’re really asking how to train for that moment when your friend (enemy) attacks, and you need to respond.

So, let’s say you do some high-intensity intervals and DOUBLE your W′ to 12 kJ. That would give you the capacity for:

350 watts for 2 minutes , or
270 watts for 10 minutes (meaning you’d finish the climb in around 9:30 — a solid improvement).

However, rather than trying to double your W′ (which is difficult), it may be more productive to increase your CP — which is generally easier to improve with training.

A 10% increase in CP would take you to 275 watts. With this higher baseline, you could:

Ride the climb faster at steady state,
And still have W′ to use on top for a final effort or response to an attack.

Physiology determines performance. Improving your physiology — whether that’s through raising CP, increasing W′, or both — improves your performance.

9 Likes
11

Your response made me think of a somewhat related question about pacing that I’ve been thinking about.

Tools like Best Bike Split can tell you what is the fastest way from A to B for a given course, for a certain average power (perhaps they can also do NP these days).

However, putting a constraint on average power (or even NP) seems like a gross over-simplification and still may lead to a power profile that is sub-optimal, or even infeasible, in reality.

Do WT teams have more nuanced ways or tools to take into account more the complex dynamics of human physiology when coming up with pacing plans for TTs, or long mountain climbs?

2 Likes
12

I don’t pay too much attention to NP (or TSS), as they’re a calculation, not a measured number. I prefer AP and kJ’s (and time).

I think most WT teams use BestBikeSplit. For me, it provides a starting point, which is then adapted based on other factors, such as fatigue, temperature, altitude… whatever.

With good/recent CDA values, it works pretty well for TT’s. It requires a bit more work for a final climb in a race, as fatigue, potential weight loss (due to fluid and glycogen depletion), and the race situation/tactics

2 Likes
13

Yes, perhaps an example might clarify what I mean.

We could have two courses: a) flat for 30km, then a steep 5km climb or b) a steep 5km climb followed by a flat 30km.

I believe BBS will (unless it’s been changed recently, happy to be corrected) give exactly the same power for the respective segments on both courses.

When in reality, I’d imagine the pacing strategy should probably be different.

Perhaps a smarter pacing calculator could optimise around constraints on W’ balance over the full course, incorporate things like core temperature etc, rather than a simple constraint on average power/NP/whatever.

But as you say, I expect WT teams just take the BBS output and tweak it manually based on some understanding of the above.

1 Like
14

The general rule is that you should put out proportionately more power when you’re moving more slowly, for example on a climb. As wind resistance scales cubicly, rather than linearly. So yes, you’re right. You’d want more power on the climb, and less on the flat. All else being equal.

1 Like
15

Yes, that much is understood.

It’s more should those relative powers really be the same for course (a) and course (b)?

Best Bike Split will say so: in both cases it may say (for example) to do 250w on the flat and 320w on the climb, assuming a threshold power of 260w.

But physiologically, they are quite different (doing 30km of threshold after a top-end effort, vs doing a top-end effort after 30km of threshold).

1 Like
16

I’d expect slight differences in strategy across each course, even if the two components (climb and flat) are reversed.

Climb first, and so higher power will likely create a bit more “metabolic mess” and increases in core temperature, that then need to be cleared during the flat part (likely) with a short period of slightly lower than threshold power. This option requires a slightly more cautious approach.

With the flat first, you could (theoretically) ride a constant effort close to/at threshold, and then do the harder effort up the climb and recover from that after the finish, such that I’d expect a slightly faster time for this option.

Of course, there’s a lot more nuance to consider, too.

17

Yes, it’s exactly this sort of second order effect of metabolic mess that I was wondering if WT teams are directly modelling when producing pacing strategies.

But sounds more like it is just “apply some heuristics on top of the Best Bike Split pacing model”.

18

Hey Jon,

Do you have a standardized heat training protocol for the riders or is it individualized? Any suggestions on a 1/2 week heat adaptation block heading into a race?

19

The primary heat adaptation that can be achieved in 1-2 weeks is an increase in blood (plasma) volume, leading to an increase in maximal cardiac output. This, in turn, should reduce heart rate for a given effort, improve cooling capacity, and (hopefully) reduce the perception of effort.

For everything you start from a standardised protocol, and as you learn how you/as a rider responds, you make individual adjustments. It’s essential to remember that adding a heat protocol introduces additional stress. As such, it’s often wise to reduce other (training) stress to accommodate.

Typically, 3-5 " active heat sessions" are performed each week, to increase core temperature by around one degree Celsius above baseline, for 20-45 minutes (dependent on tolerance), usually on the indoor trainer, no fans, and sometimes adding warm clothes. Hydrate well and replace fluid losses. Alternatively, or additionally, “passive heat sessions” can be added after a training session, in a bath, sauna or similar.

I recommend the CORE body temperature sensor to help understand, monitor, and improve heat training. It also provides a layer of safety against excessive heat stress and the risks it poses.

With heat, a LITTLE goes a LONG way. Always be cautious and sensible.

7 Likes
20

Yes indeed. He’s really perfected the “I’m ready to jump out of the plane and parachute straight into the race” approach. As have a few others including Roglic in his peak years.