Intensity and Load Characteristics of Professional Road Cycling: Differences Between Men's and Women's Races

Abstract

Purpose:
This study provides a retrospective analysis of a large competition database describing the intensity and load demands of professional road cycling races, highlighting the differences between men's and women's races.

Method:
Twenty male and ten female professional cyclists participated in this study. During 4 consecutive years, heart rate (HR), rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and power output (PO) data were collected during both male (n = 3024) and female (n = 667) professional races. Intensity distribution in five HR zones was quantified. Competition load was calculated using different metrics including Training Stress Score (TSS), Training Impulse (TRIMP) and session-RPE (sRPE). Standardized effect size is reported as Cohen's d.

Results:
Large to very large higher values (d = 1.36 - 2.86) were observed for distance, duration, total work (kJ) and mean PO in men's races. Time spent in high intensity HR zones (i.e. zone 4 and zone 5) was largely higher in women's races (d = 1.38 - 1.55) compared to men's races. Small higher loads were observed in men's races quantified using TSS (d = 0.53) and TRIMP (d = 0.23). However, load metrics expressed per km were large to very largely higher in women's races for TSS∙km-1 (d = 1.50) and TRIMP∙km-1 (d = 2.31).

Conclusions:
Volume and absolute load are higher in men's races whilst intensity and time spent at high intensity zones is higher in women's races. Coaches and practitioners should consider these differences in demands in the preparation of professional road cyclists.

Full text

“Intensity and Load Characteristics of Professional Road Cycling: Differences between Men’s and Women’s Races”
by Sanders D, van Erp T, de Koning JJ
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2018 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Note. This article will be published in a forthcoming issue of the
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. The
article appears here in its accepted, peer-reviewed form, as it was
provided by the submitting author. It has not been copyedited,
proofread, or formatted by the publisher.
Section: Original Investigation
Article Title: Intensity and Load Characteristics of Professional Road Cycling: Differences
between Men’s and Women’s Races
Authors: Dajo Sanders1,2, Teun van Erp3, and Jos J. de Koning3,4
Affiliations: 1Physiology, Physiology, Exercise and Nutrition Research Group, University of
Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom, 2Sport, Exercise and Health Research Centre, Newman
University, Birmingham, United Kingdom. 3Department of Human Movement Sciences,
Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, The Netherlands.
4Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of Wisconsin La Crosse, La Crosse,
WI, USA.
Journal: International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
Acceptance Date: July 26, 2018
©2018 Human Kinetics, Inc.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2018-0190

“Intensity and Load Characteristics of Professional Road Cycling: Differences between Men’s and Women’s Races”
by Sanders D, van Erp T, de Koning JJ
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2018 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Title page
Title of the article
Intensity and Load Characteristics of Professional Road Cycling: Differences between Men’s
and Women’s Races
Submission type: Original investigation
Full names of the Authors and Institutional/Corporate Affiliations
Dajo Sanders, 1. Physiology, Exercise and Nutrition Research Group, University of Stirling,
Stirling, United Kingdom, 2. Sport, Exercise and Health Research Centre, Newman
University, Birmingham, United Kingdom
Teun van Erp, Department of Human Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam,
Amsterdam Movement Sciences, The Netherlands
Jos J. de Koning, 1. Department of Human Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit,
Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, The Netherlands, 2. University of Wisconsin –
La Crosse, Department of Exercise and Sport Science, La Crosse, USA
Contact details for the Corresponding Author.
Dajo Sanders, Physiology, Exercise and Nutrition Research Group, University of Stirling,
Stirling, United Kingdom, FK9 5NX, Stirling , United Kingdom
email: dajo.sanders@stir.ac.uk
Running head: Men’s and women’s professional cycling races
Abstract word count: 245
Text-only Word Count: 3653
Number of Figures and Tables: 2 figures, 3 tables
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

“Intensity and Load Characteristics of Professional Road Cycling: Differences between Men’s and Women’s Races”
by Sanders D, van Erp T, de Koning JJ
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2018 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Abstract
Purpose: This study provides a retrospective analysis of a large competition database
describing the intensity and load demands of professional road cycling races, highlighting the
differences between men’s and women’s races. Method: Twenty male and ten female
professional cyclists participated in this study. During 4 consecutive years, heart rate (HR),
rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and power output (PO) data were collected during both male
(n = 3024) and female (n = 667) professional races. Intensity distribution in five HR zones was
quantified. Competition load was calculated using different metrics including Training Stress
Score (TSS), Training Impulse (TRIMP) and session-RPE (sRPE). Standardized effect size is
reported as Cohen’s d. Results: Large to very large higher values (d = 1.36 – 2.86) were
observed for distance, duration, total work (kJ) and mean PO in men’s races. Time spent in
high intensity HR zones (i.e. zone 4 and zone 5) was largely higher in women’s races (d = 1.38
– 1.55) compared to men’s races. Small higher loads were observed in men’s races quantified
using TSS (d = 0.53) and TRIMP (d = 0.23). However, load metrics expressed per km were
large to very largely higher in women’s races for TSS∙km-1 (d = 1.50) and TRIMP∙km-1 (d =
2.31). Conclusions: Volume and absolute load are higher in men’s races whilst intensity and
time spent at high intensity zones is higher in women’s races. Coaches and practitioners should
consider these differences in demands in the preparation of professional road cyclists.
Keywords: training impulse, cycling, training load, performance
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

“Intensity and Load Characteristics of Professional Road Cycling: Differences between Men’s and Women’s Races”
by Sanders D, van Erp T, de Koning JJ
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2018 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Introduction
There are road cycling competitions all around the world across a broad spectrum that
ranges from youth and junior competitions to elite professional competitions. A male World
Tour professional cyclist will cycle around 25 000 to 35 000 kilometres in training and
competition each year including up to 100 competition days.1,2 In recent years, women’s road
cycling has been growing widely and in 2016 the Women’s World Tour was established with
more and more races running alongside the Men’s World Tour programme. Even though
published data on the training characteristics of female professional cyclists is limited, own
observations have shown that female World Tour female cyclists will typically cover around
13 000 to 18 000 kilometres in training and competition each year, including up to 65
competition days.
Due to technological advancements over recent years with mobile heart rate (HR) and
power meters, the collection of both physiological (i.e. HR) and work rate (i.e. power output
[PO]) data in the field is now widely possible to monitor the training and competition of
cyclists. As a result of this accessible data collection, both applied and more descriptive studies
on professional cycling (races) have been performed in recent decades. Most studies have
focused on describing the demands of men’s professional road cycling races1,3-6 with limited
research available describing the demands of women’s professional races.7,8 However, even
though some evidence regarding the demands of professional men’ and women’s races is
available, there is little evidence describing the differences between men’s and women’s races
in terms of exercise intensity and load demands. A detailed description of the demands of both
men’s and women’s races is valuable information for coaches and practitioners working with
these athletes on a daily basis. In addition, differences in intensity distribution between men’s
and women’s races may result in different training prescription and preparation for races.
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

“Intensity and Load Characteristics of Professional Road Cycling: Differences between Men’s and Women’s Races”
by Sanders D, van Erp T, de Koning JJ
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2018 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Accordingly, this study aims to provide an analysis of a large competition database
describing the intensity and load demands of professional road cycling races, highlighting the
differences between men’s and women’s races.
Methods
Participants
Twenty male (mean ± SD: age: 27.5 ± 4.0 yrs, height: 184.8 ± 6.2 cm, bodyweight:
73.2 ± 7.1 kg) and ten female (age: 24.5 ± 4.5 yrs, height: 169.6 ± 6.7 cm, bodyweight: 60.5 ±
4.3 kg) highly trained professional cyclists, part of a current World Tour professional cycling
team, participated in this study. During the four-year monitoring period, the men’s team were
active on the Pro-Continental level for the first year and part of the World Tour for the last
three years. The women’s team finished every year within the top-10 of the Union Cycliste
Internationale (UCI) elite women team ranking over the course of the study period. Institutional
ethics approval was granted and, in agreement with the Helsinki Declaration, written informed
consent was obtained from the participants.
Research design
During 4 consecutive years, rating of perceived exertion (RPE), HR and PO data was
collected during both single-day and multi-day (stage) races for the males and females within
the team. Only UCI classified races were included for analysis. Depending on how long the
cyclist was involved in riding for the team, the data set of an individual cyclist contains data
ranging from 1 to 4 years. If a cyclist was not able to ride for a period of 3 months or more,
because of illness or an injury, the data set of this particular year was excluded. All data sets
were visually checked for erroneous data and incomplete data files due to technological issues
(e.g. flat battery of power meter or monitor) were excluded. If one of the three main variables
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

“Intensity and Load Characteristics of Professional Road Cycling: Differences between Men’s and Women’s Races”
by Sanders D, van Erp T, de Koning JJ
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2018 Human Kinetics, Inc.
(i.e. RPE, HR or PO) was missing for a given race, and no erroneous data was present within
the given file, this dataset was still analysed using the available data.
Race characteristics
Intensity distribution was quantified based on the time spent in different HR zones. A
five-zone model was used to quantify the time spent in each intensity zone. HR zones were
based on percentages of maximal HR (HRmax) (zone 1: 50-59% HRmax, zone 2: 60-69% HRmax,
zone 3: 70-79% HRmax, zone 4: 80-89% HRmax, zone 5: 90-100%).9 HRmax was defined as the
highest HR achieved by the cyclist during training or competition of the analysed season and
adjusted every season (if needed). The determination of intensity zones is ideally approached
using the integration of physiological measures and anchored around physiological thresholds
(i.e. lactate or ventilatory thresholds)10, however, as no structured laboratory exercise testing
was incorporated over the course of this study, this was not feasible in this study. In addition,
the percentage of total race time spent at different power bands was compared between men’s
and women’s races.7 The power bands were constructed in steps of 0.75 W∙kg-1 ranges from <
0.75 to > 7.50 W∙kg-1.
Exercise load was calculated using different methods based on either HR, PO or RPE:
Edwards’ TRIMP (TRIMP)9, Training Stress Score (TSS)11 and session-RPE (sRPE).12
Edwards’ TRIMP was calculated based on the time spent in the five pre-defined HR zones
described above and multiplied by a zone-specific arbitrary weighting factor (zone 1: weighting
factor = 1, zone 2: weighting factor = 2, zone 3: weighting factor = 3, zone 4: weighting factor
= 4, zone 5: weighting factor = 5) and then summated to provide a total TRIMP score.9 TSS
was calculated based on power data collected with portable power meters (SRM, Jülich,
Welldorf, Germany and Pioneer, Kawasaki, Japan). TSS was calculated according to Coggan11,
using the following formula:
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

“Intensity and Load Characteristics of Professional Road Cycling: Differences between Men’s and Women’s Races”
by Sanders D, van Erp T, de Koning JJ
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2018 Human Kinetics, Inc.
TSS = [ (t x NP™ x IF™) / (FTP x 3600) ] x 100
where t is the duration of the exercise bout in seconds, NP™ is Normalized Power of the
exercise bout11, and IF™ is an intensity factor which is the ratio between the NP of the exercise
bout and the individual’s Functional Threshold power (FTP).11 FTP was determined as 95% of
the highest 20 min mean maximal PO, either achieved during a specific 20 min time trial in
training or adjusted when the mean maximal 20 min power output was higher during a race.
All riders were informed about the importance of the zero-calibration of the power meter and
were instructed to do the zero-calibration before every ride. Both Edwards’ TRIMP and TSS
have previously been shown to have a strong dose-response relationships with changes in
fitness in competitive road cyclists.13 As a subjective measure of internal load, sRPE was
calculated using the participants’ RPE (6-20 scale) and session duration. Riders were
familiarised with the RPE scale prior to the start of this study and were instructed on the use of
the scale. The RPE was obtained after the race, using an online self-filled in logbook, based on
the question: “How hard was your workout?”. Even though the general recommendation is to
obtain a RPE score within 30 min of each competition, the time between the end of the race
and the cyclist filling in the RPE score could have been longer in this study (~1 – 5 hours).
However, previous studies have shown that athletes are able to recall RPE accurately between
24 - 48h after the end of the training or competition.14,15 Exercise load for the session was then
quantified by multiplying the RPE by the duration of the session (minutes).12 In addition,
similar to previous research5, load metrics (TRIMP, TSS and sRPE) and total work performed
(kJ) were also expressed relatively per kilometre (i.e. TRIMP∙km-1, TSS∙km-1, sRPE∙km-1 and
kJ∙km-1).
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

“Intensity and Load Characteristics of Professional Road Cycling: Differences between Men’s and Women’s Races”
by Sanders D, van Erp T, de Koning JJ
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2018 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Statistical Analysis
Prior to analysis the assumption of normality was verified by using Shapiro-Wilk W
test and by visual inspection of QQ plots. Intensity and load variables were compared to each
other using a multilevel random intercept model using Tukey’s method for pairwise
comparisons in R (R: A Language and environment for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria).
Random effect variability was modelled using a random intercept for each individual
participant. Level of significance was established at P < 0.05. In addition, magnitude based
inferences was used to further evaluate and describe the magnitude of the effects observed.16
Standardised effect size is reported as Cohen’s d, using the pooled standard deviation as the
denominator. Qualitative interpretation of d was based on the guidelines provided by Hopkins
et al.16: 0 - 0.19 trivial; 0.20 – 0.59 small; 0.6 – 1.19 moderate; 1.20 – 1.99 large; ≥ 2.00 very
large.
Results
In total, 616 women’s races and 3024 men’s races were collected and analysed. In total,
3640 races with power data (women’s races; n = 616, men’s races; n = 3024 ), 2346 races with
HR data (women’s races; n = 424, men’s races; n = 1730) and 1621 races with RPE (women’s
races; n = 533, men’s races; n = 1088) data were analysed. The main part of the dataset included
multi-day stage races for both men and women (78% of men’s races, 60% of women’s races).
Within the dataset, there were a total of 57 wins (1.9% of total files) and 289 top-10 finishes
(9.6% of total files) for the men’s team and 7 wins (1.1% of total files) and 121 top-10 finishes
(19.6% of total files) for the women’s team.
Table 1 presents the descriptive values for both the men’s and women’s races. Large
to very large higher values (d = 1.36 – 2.86) were observed for distance, duration and mean
PO in men’s races. However, Intensity Factor™, mean HR and mean HR as %HRmax were
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

“Intensity and Load Characteristics of Professional Road Cycling: Differences between Men’s and Women’s Races”
by Sanders D, van Erp T, de Koning JJ
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2018 Human Kinetics, Inc.
largely higher (d = 1.36 – 1.80) in women’s races. Figure 1 graphically displays the differences
in the percentage time spent in different HR zones for men’s versus women’s professional
cycling races. Time spent in high intensity HR zones (i.e. zone 4 and zone 5) was largely higher
in women’s races (d = 1.38 – 1.55) compared to men’s races (42 ± 11% and 21 ± 16% versus
24 ± 12% and 6 ± 6%). Table 2 presents the absolute load and load expressed relative to
distance and duration for the men’s and women’s races. Total work (absolute and expressed
per km) was large to very largely (d = 1.48 – 2.73) higher in men’s races. Small higher absolute
loads were observed in men’s races quantified using TSS (d = 0.53) and TRIMP (d = 0.23).
However, load expressed per km was large to very largely higher in women’s races for
TSS∙km-1 (d = 1.50) and TRIMP∙km-1 (d = 2.31). Similar results were observed when load
metrics were expressed per minute with TSS∙min-1 (1.15 ± 0.19 AU vs 0.89 ± 0.18 AU) and
TRIMP∙min-1 (2.80 ± 0.44 AU vs 3.68 ± 0.41 AU) being large to very largely (d = 1.34 – 2.04)
higher in women’s races.
Figure 2 presents the percentage of competition time spent at different relative PO
(W∙kg-1) bands. Time spent at the lower end of the power bands (0.76 – 3.00 W∙kg-1) was
moderately higher for women’s races (d = 0.65 – 1.16). Time spent at the higher end of the
power bands (4.51 – 6.75 W∙kg-1) was moderately higher for men’s races (d = 0.60 – 0.72).
Table 3 presents the differences in intensity and load metrics between men’s and
women’s races for both single-day and multi-day stage races. Mean HR, mean HR as a
percentage of HRmax and TRIMP∙km-1 were moderately higher in single-day compared to multi-
day races for both men and women (d = 0.66 – 0.96). Mean PO (W∙kg-1), RPE, Intensity Factor
and TSS∙km-1 were also higher in single-day races for both men and women with these
differences being small (d = 0.26 – 0.59).
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

“Intensity and Load Characteristics of Professional Road Cycling: Differences between Men’s and Women’s Races”
by Sanders D, van Erp T, de Koning JJ
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2018 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Discussion
This study provides a retrospective analysis of a large competition database (~ 3700
professional road cycling races) describing the intensity and load demands of professional road
cycling races, highlighting the differences between men’s and women’s races. This study
reports the substantial differences in intensity and load characteristics of men’s versus women’s
races. Within expectations, men’s cycling races are higher in duration, distance, total work,
absolute PO and load. However, women spent a substantially bigger proportion of time at
higher intensity zones compared to men’s races. In addition, load expressed relative to distance
or duration is large to very largely higher in women’s races compared to men’s races. These
descriptive results contribute to a better understanding of the demands of professional cycling
races and the specific differences between men’s and women’s races.
Because of the differences in race format and regulations in men’s versus women’s
races, the substantial higher duration, distance and total work (kJ) are not surprising. Following
the regulations of the international cycling federation the UCI, one day (professional) races for
women are limited to a maximum of 160 km on the highest level (“World Tour”) whilst the
longest one-day races for men can be around 260 up till 300 km. Obviously, these regulations
largely contribute to the observed differences within this study, especially relating to the
‘volume’ based metrics. However, metrics expressed relatively (i.e. % of total race time, load
per km) where substantially higher in women’s races. This is nicely illustrated by Figure 1
showing a substantially higher proportion of time spent at the highest HR zones (i.e. zone 4
and zone 5) in women’s races compared to men’s races. In addition, the mean HR relative to
their maximal HR is 10% higher (79 vs 69%) in women’s races compared to men’s races.
Hence, it seems that women compensate the shorter duration of their races with a higher
intensity and different riding style. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

“Intensity and Load Characteristics of Professional Road Cycling: Differences between Men’s and Women’s Races”
by Sanders D, van Erp T, de Koning JJ
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2018 Human Kinetics, Inc.
to specifically highlight the substantial differences in intensity demands comparing men’s to
women’s professional cycling races. Due to the substantial differences in the proportion of total
competition time spent at high intensity, training strategies to prepare for these demands (e.g.
high intensity interval training formats) may not be used interchangeably for male and female
professional cyclists.
It is important to note that, despite of the substantial differences in objective intensity
metrics based on HR and PO between men’s and women’s races, perceived intensity (i.e. RPE)
was not different when comparing men’s and women’s races. Hence, differences in physical
demands, objective intensity and load characteristics may still result in similar perceived
intensity suggesting that subjective and objective metrics have the ability to reflect different
constructs within the training process. This is in line with previous research in cyclists
describing the differences between subjective and objective measurements of intensity (and
load) in evaluating training characteristics and how the combination of subjective and objective
metrics can be used to detect states of excessive fatigue or adaptation.17-19
Mean PO was largely higher in men’s races compared to women’s races which is
suggested to be largely determined, among other factors, by inherent physiological differences
between men and women, specifically relating to maximal oxygen uptake and body
composition (i.e. higher lean mass in males).20 This results in the typically higher aerobic
capacity observed in male professional cyclists21 compared to female cyclists22. When
controlled for bodyweight, the differences between men’s and women’s races in terms of mean
PO is decreased; from a large difference (d = 1.81) for absolute PO to a small difference (d =
0.44) in relative PO (W∙kg-1). The substantial lower bodyweight (60.5 ± 4.3 kg vs 73.2 ± 7.1
kg) for the female cyclists in this study most likely contributes to the smaller difference. When
comparing to previous literature, the observed mean PO in this study during women’s races
(2.8 ± 0.4 W∙kg-1) is lower compared to the 3.0 – 3.4 W∙kg-1 previously reported mean PO’s
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

“Intensity and Load Characteristics of Professional Road Cycling: Differences between Men’s and Women’s Races”
by Sanders D, van Erp T, de Koning JJ
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2018 Human Kinetics, Inc.
for women’s world cup races7,8. The main reason proposed for this difference is that the
previously reported values only evaluated world cup races whilst the competition database in
this study also incorporated non-world cup (i.e. lower level) races in the analysis. In terms of
men’s races, Ebert et al.3 showed a mean PO of 2.7 W∙kg-1 for flat and 2.9 W∙kg-1 for hilly
professional male races3, whilst we observed a mean PO of 3.0 ± 0.5 W∙kg-1 in this study.
Furthermore, the mean PO observed in this study is similar to what has previously been
observed in professional cyclists during a multistage cycling race (3.1 ± 0.2 W∙kg-1)4 and the
mean PO during the competitive season of 4 professional cyclists (3.1 W∙kg-1).1 Even though
there are some discrepancies between studies, based on the current evidence, female
professional cycling races will vary on average around 2.8 W∙kg-1 with world cup races > 3.0
W∙kg-1. On average, male professional cycling races will vary around 3.0 – 3.1 W∙kg-1 whilst
this may be higher or lower depending on the level of competition, ‘race profile’ (e.g. elevation
gain23,24) and race tactics.
Intensity and load demands of professional men’s cycling races has been evaluated in
a number of previous studies1,6,23,24, however, studies evaluating the characteristics of women’s
professional cycling races remains limited. Recently, Menaspa et al.7 evaluated the demands
of world cup competitions in professional women road cycling races. Even though the reporting
of their results doesn’t allow an exact comparisons, percentage of competition time spent at
different power bands seems to be similar in this study compared to the results by Menaspa et
al.7. The biggest proportion of competition time is spent at PO < 0.75 W∙kg-1 due to non-
pedalling activity. Besides that, similar to the results by Menaspa et al.7, a big proportion of
time is spent at 1.51 – 4.50 W∙kg-1 in women’s races. A slight shift to the right can be seen in
terms of the proportion of competition spent at the different power bands for men’s races with
a big proportion of time spent at 2.26 – 5.25 W∙kg-1. This right shift in the power bands is caused
by the higher relative and absolute PO of men’s races compared to women’s races (Table 1).
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

“Intensity and Load Characteristics of Professional Road Cycling: Differences between Men’s and Women’s Races”
by Sanders D, van Erp T, de Koning JJ
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2018 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Even though this provides valuable insight into the (mean) demands of professional cycling
races, it should be acknowledged that the level of competition (i.e. World Tour vs no World
Tour races), level of athlete7, race profile24 and race tactics7 can have a large effect on the
quantified demands of the race. However, as the main aim of this study was to examine the
differences in intensity and load of men’s versus women’s professional cycling as a whole –
and not the differences between the demands of different levels of races, it was chosen to adopt
an approach where all the data was analysed and compared in order to maximise the sample
size. Furthermore, the level hierarchy of professional men’s races is more extensive and
complicated compared to women’s cycling making such direct comparisons difficult to
interpret.
In line with previous research25, small to moderate higher intensity and load per
kilometre were observed for single-day races compared to multi-day stage races for both men’s
and women’s races. However, irrespective of the race format (i.e. single or multi-day race)
intensity was higher in women’s races for both single and multi-day races. For example, during
single-day and multi-day races mean HR was at 74% and 69% of HRmax for men’s races whilst
it was at 81% and 77% of HRmax for women’s races, respectively.
There are some limitations that need to be taken in to account when interpreting the
results of the study. The main causes for limitations occurring with this analysis comes from
the fact that this was a retrospective analysis of race data. For example, the HR zones used in
this study are based on ranges of a percentage of maximal HR whilst it must be acknowledged
that there can be day-to-day variations in maximal HR (e.g. due to fatigue18,26) that can
influence the data analysis. Ideally, HR zones would be anchored around physiological
thresholds such as the first and second lactate or ventilatory thresholds.10,27,28 However, during
the time of the analysis, no regular and controlled laboratory exercise testing was implemented
within the team, making such approaches (retrospectively) not feasible. Furthermore, for this
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

“Intensity and Load Characteristics of Professional Road Cycling: Differences between Men’s and Women’s Races”
by Sanders D, van Erp T, de Koning JJ
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2018 Human Kinetics, Inc.
same reason, more individualized approaches to load quantification previously used in
cycling13 such as individualized TRIMP29 or Lucia’s TRIMP30 were not feasible in our study.
However, it must be noted that both Edwards’ TRIMP and TSS showed strong dose-response
validity with changes in aerobic fitness in competitive road cyclists.13 In addition, FTP which
was determined using the year’s best 20 min mean maximal PO achieved in training or racing.
Hence, during certain time periods FTP can be either under- or overestimated which would
lead to variability and inaccuracies with regards to the determination of TSS. Whilst
acknowledging these limitations caused by the retrospective analysis, this approach has made
it possible to collect and analyse a large competition database in elite athletes (~3700 races),
which has currently not been published before. Thereby, despite of the mentioned limitations,
this study highlights important differences in competition intensity and load demands between
men’s and women’s races.
Practical Application
These descriptive results contribute to a better understanding of the demands of
professional cycling races and the specific differences between men’s and women’s races.
Within expectations, men’s cycling races are higher in duration, distance, total work (kJ),
absolute PO and load. However, the intensity of women’s races is substantially higher
compared to men’s races highlighted by the time spent in high intensity zones and the higher
relative intensity metrics (e.g. %HRmax) in women’s races. Coaches and practitioners should
consider these differences in demands in the preparation of professional cyclists. These results
may indicate that preparation strategies between men’s and women’s races cannot be used
interchangeably. Particularly, the substantial differences in the time spent at high intensity (HR
zones) in women’s races may suggest that preparation strategies for these demands (e.g. high
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

“Intensity and Load Characteristics of Professional Road Cycling: Differences between Men’s and Women’s Races”
by Sanders D, van Erp T, de Koning JJ
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2018 Human Kinetics, Inc.
intensity interval training formats/protocols) may require a different approach compared to
men’s races.
Conclusions
To conclude, even though overall volume and absolute load are higher in men’s races,
relative intensity and time spent at high intensity zones is higher in women’s races, despite a
similar RPE. Coaches and practitioners should consider these differences in demands in the
preparation of professional road cyclists. These results may indicate that preparation strategies
between men’s and women’s races cannot be used interchangeably.
Acknowledgments
No sources of funding were used to compose this article. The authors have no conflicts of
interest that are related to the described content of this manuscript.
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

“Intensity and Load Characteristics of Professional Road Cycling: Differences between Men’s and Women’s Races”
by Sanders D, van Erp T, de Koning JJ
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2018 Human Kinetics, Inc.
References
1. Metcalfe AJ, Menaspa P, Villerius V, et al. Within-Season Distribution of External
Training and Racing Workload in Professional Male Road Cyclists. Int J Sports
Physiol Perform. Apr 2017;12(Suppl 2):S2142-S2146.
2. Lucia A, Hoyos J, Chicharro JL. Physiology of Professional Road Cycling. Sports
Med. 2001;31(5):325-337.
3. Ebert TR, Martin DT, Stephens B, Withers RT. Power output during a professional
men's road-cycling tour. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. Dec 2006;1(4):324-335.
4. Vogt S, Heinrich L, Schumacher YO, et al. Power output during stage racing in
professional road cycling. Med Sci Sports Exerc. Jan 2006;38(1):147-151.
5. Rodriguez-Marroyo JA, Villa G, Garcia-Lopez J, Foster C. Comparison of heart rate
and session rating of perceived exertion methods of defining exercise load in cyclists.
J Strength Cond Res. Aug 2012;26(8):2249-2257.
6. Rodriguez-Marroyo JA, Garcia-Lopez J, Juneau CE, Villa JG. Workload demands in
professional multi-stage cycling races of varying duration. Br J Sports Med. Mar
2009;43(3):180-185.
7. Menaspa P, Sias M, Bates G, La Torre A. Demands of World Cup Competitions in
Elite Women's Road Cycling. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. Nov 1 2017;12(10):1293-
1296.
8. Ebert TR, Martin DT, McDonald W, Victor J, Plummer J, Withers RT. Power output
during women's World Cup road cycle racing. Eur J Appl Physiol. Dec 2005;95(5-
6):529-536.
9. Edwards S. The Heart Rate Monitor Book. New York: Polar Electro Oy; 1993.
10. Seiler S, Kjerland GO. Quantifying training intensity distribution in elite endurance
athletes: is there evidence for an "optimal" distribution? Scand J Med Sci Sports. Feb
2006;16(1):49-56.
11. Coggan AR. Training and racing using a power meter: an introduction. Level II
Coaching Manual. Colorado Springs, CO: USA cycling; 2003:123-145.
12. Foster C, Daines E, Hector L, Snyder AC, Welsh R. Athletic performance in relation
to training load. Wis Med J. Jun 1996;95(6):370-374.
13. Sanders D, Abt G, Hesselink MK, Myers T, Akubat I. Methods of Monitoring
Training Load and Their Relationships to Changes in Fitness and Performance in
Competitive Road Cyclists. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. Jan 17 2017;12(5):668-675.
14. Fanchini M, Ferraresi I, Petruolo A, et al. Is a retrospective RPE appropriate in
soccer? Response shift and recall bias. Sci Med Footb. 2017;Ahead of Print.
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

“Intensity and Load Characteristics of Professional Road Cycling: Differences between Men’s and Women’s Races”
by Sanders D, van Erp T, de Koning JJ
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2018 Human Kinetics, Inc.
15. Scantlebury S, Till K, Sawczuk T, Phibbs P, Jones B. The validity of retrospective
session-rating of perceived exertion to quantify training load in youth athletes. J
Strength Cond Res. 2017;Ahead of Print.
16. Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM, Hanin J. Progressive statistics for studies
in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports Exerc. Jan 2009;41(1):3-13.
17. Sanders D, Myers T, Akubat I. Training-Intensity Distribution in Road Cyclists:
Objective Versus Subjective Measures. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. Oct
2017;12(9):1232-1237.
18. Sanders D, Heijboer M, Hesselink MKC, Myers T, Akubat I. Analysing a cycling
grand tour: Can we monitor fatigue with intensity or load ratios? J Sports Sci. Jun
2018;36(12):1385-1391.
19. Capostagno B, Lambert MI, Lamberts RP. A Systematic Review of Submaximal
Cycle Tests to Predict, Monitor, and Optimize Cycling Performance. Int J Sports
Physiol Perform. Sep 2016;11(6):707-714.
20. Bouchard C, Daw EW, Rice T, et al. Familial resemblance for VO2max in the
sedentary state: the HERITAGE family study. Med Sci Sports Exerc. Feb
1998;30(2):252-258.
21. Padilla S, Mujika I, Cuesta G, Goiriena JJ. Level ground and uphill cycling ability in
professional cycling. Med Sci Sports Exerc. Jun 1999;31(6):878-885.
22. Impellizzeri FM, Ebert T, Sassi A, Menaspa P, Rampinini E, Martin DT. Level
ground and uphill cycling ability in elite female mountain bikers and road cyclists.
Eur J Appl Physiol. Feb 2008;102(3):335-341.
23. Padilla S, Mujika I, Santisteban J, Impellizzeri FM, Goiriena JJ. Exercise intensity
and load during uphill cycling in professional 3-week races. Eur J Appl Physiol. Mar
2008;102(4):431-438.
24. Padilla S, Mujika I, Orbananos J, Santisteban J, Angulo F, Jose Goiriena J. Exercise
intensity and load during mass-start stage races in professional road cycling. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. May 2001;33(5):796-802.
25. Rodriguez-Marroyo JA, Pernia R, Cejuela R, Garcia-Lopez J, Llopis J, Villa JG.
Exercise intensity and load during different races in youth and junior cyclists. J
Strength Cond Res. Feb 2011;25(2):511-519.
26. Rodriguez-Marroyo JA, Villa JG, Pernia R, Foster C. Decrement in Professional
Cyclists' Performance After a Grand Tour. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. Mar 24
2017:1-23 [Epub ahead of print].
27. Seiler S. What is best practice for training intensity and duration distribution in
endurance athletes? Int J Sports Physiol Perform. Sep 2010;5(3):276-291.
28. Seiler S, Tønessen E. Intervals, Thresholds, and Long Slow Distance: the Role of
Intensity and Duration in Endurance Training. Sportscience. 2009;13:32-53.
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

“Intensity and Load Characteristics of Professional Road Cycling: Differences between Men’s and Women’s Races”
by Sanders D, van Erp T, de Koning JJ
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2018 Human Kinetics, Inc.
29. Manzi V, Iellamo F, Impellizzeri F, D'Ottavio S, Castagna C. Relation between
individualized training impulses and performance in distance runners. Med Sci Sports
Exerc. Nov 2009;41(11):2090-2096.
30. Lucia A, Hoyos J, Santalla A, Earnest C, Chicharro JL. Tour de France versus Vuelta
a Espana: which is harder? Med Sci Sports Exerc. May 2003;35(5):872-878.
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

“Intensity and Load Characteristics of Professional Road Cycling: Differences between Men’s and Women’s Races”
by Sanders D, van Erp T, de Koning JJ
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2018 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Figure 1. Intensity distribution as percentage time spent in different heart rate zones in men’s
versus women’s professional cycling races
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

“Intensity and Load Characteristics of Professional Road Cycling: Differences between Men’s and Women’s Races”
by Sanders D, van Erp T, de Koning JJ
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2018 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Figure 2. Power output distribution as % time spent in different power bands. *presents a
moderate difference (d ≥ 0.60).
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

“Intensity and Load Characteristics of Professional Road Cycling: Differences between Men’s and Women’s Races”
by Sanders D, van Erp T, de Koning JJ
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2018 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Table 1. Volume and intensity characteristics of women’s and men’s professional cycling
races.
Women’s races
Men’s races
Differences men’s vs women’s
races
Mean ± SD
Mean ± SD
Cohen’s d
Distance (km)
116 ± 17*
183 ± 32
2.70 – Very large
Duration (min)
194 ± 30*
285 ± 56
2.12 – Very large
Mean PO (W)
167 ± 21*
216 ± 34
1.81 – Large
Mean PO (W∙kg-1)
2.8 ± 0.4*
3.0 ± 0.5
0.44 – Small
Intensity Factor™
0.83 ± 0.07*
0.73 ± 0.08
1.36 – Large
Mean HR (beats∙min-1)
152 ± 13*
133 ± 12
1.60 – Large
Mean HR (%HRmax)
79 ± 10*
69 ± 6
1.80 – Large
HRmax (beats∙min-1)
185 ± 10
180 ± 12
0.40 – Small
Mean RPE (AU)
(6-20 scale)
15.4 ± 1.5
15.4 ± 2.1
0.02 – Trivial
Abbreviations: PO, power output; HR, heart rate; HRmax, maximal heart rate; RPE, rating of perceived exertion. Qualitative
interpretation of d was based on the guidelines provided by Hopkins et al.16
*Significant difference (P < 0.05)
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

“Intensity and Load Characteristics of Professional Road Cycling: Differences between Men’s and Women’s Races”
by Sanders D, van Erp T, de Koning JJ
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2018 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Table 2. Absolute load in competition and load metrics expressed relative to distance in men’s
versus women’s professional cycling races.
Women’s
races
Men’s races
Differences men’s vs women’s races
Cohen’s d
Total work (kJ)
1958 ± 384*
3734 ± 918
2.73 – Very large
TSS (AU)
224 ± 49*
255 ± 68
0.53 – Small
TRIMP (AU)
700 ± 141*
739 ± 203
0.23 – Small
sRPE (AU)
2982 ± 585*
4370 ± 1144
1.61 - Large
kJ∙km-1
16.8 ± 2.5*
20.4 ± 3.9
1.48 – Large
TSS∙km-1 (AU)
1.92 ± 0.35*
1.40 ± 0.31
1.50 – Large
TRIMP∙km-1 (AU)
6.02 ± 0.84*
4.08 ± 0.94
2.31 – Very large
sRPE∙km-1 (AU)
25.6 ± 4.0*
24.0 ± 4.3
0.42 – Small
Abbreviations: TSS, Training Stress Score; TRIMP, Edwards’ training impulse; sRPE, session rating of perceived
exertion. Qualitative interpretation of d was based on the guidelines provided by Hopkins et al.16
*Significant difference (P < 0.05)
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

“Intensity and Load Characteristics of Professional Road Cycling: Differences between Men’s and Women’s Races”
by Sanders D, van Erp T, de Koning JJ
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2018 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Table 3. Differences in intensity and load metrics between women’s and men’s races for single-day and multi-day races
Single day
Multi stage
Women’s races
Men’s races
Cohen’s d
Women’s races
Men’s races
Cohen’s d
Mean PO (W∙kg-1)
2.84 ± 0.30*
3.17 ± 0.41
0.94 – Moderate
2.68 ± 0.34*
2.99 ± 0.43
0.83 – Moderate
Mean HR (beats∙min-1)
157 ± 10*
140 ± 10
1.57 – Large
149 ± 12*
130 ± 10
1.66 – Large
Mean RPE (AU)
15.2 ± 1.6*
16.1 ± 1.9
0.51 – Small
15.5 ± 1.5
15.6 ± 2.0
0.04 – Trivial
Intensity Factor™
0.86 ± 0.05*
0.76 ± 0.07
1.40 – Large
0.82 ± 0.08*
0.73 ± 0.07
1.18 – Moderate
Mean HR (%HRmax)
81 ± 4*
74 ± 5
1.77 – Large
77 ± 4*
69 ± 5
1.80 – Large
TSS (AU)
236 ± 48*
286 ± 80
0.78 – Moderate
217 ± 52*
254 ± 63
0.64 - Moderate
TRIMP (AU)
737 ± 151*
868 ± 207
0.73 - Moderate
670 ± 124*
702 ± 186
0.20 – Small
TSS∙km-1 (AU)
2.01 ± 0.30*
1.49 ± 0.27
1.80 – Large
1.88 ± 0.37*
1.41 ± 0.30
1.41 – Large
TRIMP∙km-1 (AU)
6.33 ± 0.72*
4.63 ± 0.72
2.34 – Very large
5.80 ± 0.85*
4.04 ± 0.90
2.01 – Very large
Abbreviations: PO, power output; HR, heart rate; RPE, rating of perceived exertion; TSS, Training Stress Score; TRIMP, Edwards’ training impulse; Qualitative interpretation of d was
based on the guidelines provided by Hopkins et al.16
*Significant difference (P < 0.05)
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance