Original episode & show notes | Raw transcript
This document provides a detailed, academic exploration of the advanced cycling training concepts discussed in the Empirical Cycling Podcast. It deconstructs common training myths and explains the underlying physiological principles for an educated student audience.
A prevalent belief in cycling is that athletes with a strong sprint (road sprinters, criterium specialists, etc.) require a completely different approach to aerobic training compared to endurance-focused riders or time trialists. The podcast argues this is largely a myth, and that the underlying principles of aerobic adaptation are universal.
The myth is rooted in several related ideas:
Physiological Trade-offs: A common assumption is that developing a powerful sprint and a large aerobic engine are mutually exclusive goals. Gaining endurance is thought to diminish sprint power, and vice versa.
Muscle Fiber Dogma: Traditional textbook definitions categorize muscle fibers rigidly: Type I (“slow-twitch”) for endurance and fat oxidation, and Type II (“fast-twitch”) for power, speed, and glycolysis. The thinking is that aerobic training targets Type I fibers, while sprint training targets Type II, and over-emphasizing one will negatively impact the other.
Training Economy: Athletes have a finite capacity to train and recover. A belief forms that if time and energy are spent on long endurance rides or threshold intervals, there is less capacity for the sprint and power work necessary to be a top sprinter.
The podcast debunks this by highlighting modern training science and practical observations from elite athletes.
1. Elite Athletes Demonstrate Dual Capability: Athletes like Mathieu van der Poel are prime examples of cyclists who possess both world-class sprint power and a massive aerobic engine. This demonstrates that not only can they coexist, but their combination creates the most formidable athletes. Developing one does not preclude the development of the other.
2. Muscle Fiber Characteristics are Nuanced and Adaptable: Recent research has shown that the characteristics of muscle fibers are far more plastic than previously thought. The podcast references a study on cross-country skiers where their Type II fibers developed such high mitochondrial density and oxidative capacity that they became nearly as efficient at fat oxidation as Type I fibers, with the added benefit of producing more force.
3. Sprint Performance is More Than Just Fiber Type: A powerful sprint isn’t solely determined by having a high percentage of Type II fibers. Other critical factors include:
Rate of Force Development (RFD): How quickly an athlete can generate peak force. This is highly trainable through gym work and on-bike explosive efforts.
Neuromuscular Coordination: The ability to recruit motor units efficiently and rapidly.
Biomechanics & Gearing: Cyclists can choose their gearing, allowing athletes with different physiological profiles (e.g., high-force/low-cadence vs. high-cadence/high-RFD) to achieve similar peak power outputs.
4. The Role of Fatigue: The most significant reason sprinters might see a drop in power when undertaking a large aerobic training block is accumulated fatigue, not a fundamental physiological trade-off.
The podcast emphasizes that fatigue is the “ultimate watt block.”
Sprinters often require more recovery than non-sprinters to express their top-end power. When an athlete adds substantial aerobic volume and intensity, their peak power will naturally be suppressed until they take adequate rest. The underlying capacity hasn’t vanished; it’s just masked by fatigue.
Therefore, the primary difference in training prescription for a sprinter is not the type of aerobic work, but the overall management of training load and recovery to ensure they arrive at key competitions fresh enough to utilize their sprint.
This myth posits that since criteriums and many road races are decided by repeated high-power surges, training should consist almost exclusively of anaerobic capacity work, sprints, and race simulations.
The logic is straightforward: if a race is 1 hour of surging, attacking, and sprinting, then training should be 1 hour of the same. This leads to a focus on workouts like short, high-intensity intervals and sprinting while fatigued.
The podcast argues this is a flawed, short-sighted approach that often leads to plateaus and burnout.
1. Getting to the Finish: You can possess a 3,000-watt sprint, but it is useless if you are dropped 15 minutes into a 60-minute race. The primary requirement for success in any mass-start event is the aerobic fitness to “be there” at the end. A high Functional Threshold Power (FTP) allows a rider to handle the race’s pace with less physiological strain, conserving precious anaerobic reserves for the decisive moments.
2. The “Training Too Hard for Criteriums” Principle: This is a core concept from the podcast. Athletes often mistake fatigue at the end of a race as a weakness in their sprint or anaerobic capacity. They reason, “My sprint was only 1000W, but fresh I can do 1500W. I need more sprint training.”
The actual problem is that their aerobic engine wasn’t strong enough to carry them to the final laps without completely depleting their energy stores.
The solution is often counter-intuitive: more aerobic development (endurance, sweet spot, threshold) to reduce the cost of participating in the race, thereby preserving energy for the finish.
3. The Limitation of Purely Race-Specific Training: While race-specific workouts have their place, especially in the final weeks before a key event (the “polish”), building a season around them is inefficient for long-term development.
Physiological Analogy: You cannot polish a statue without first building it. The long aerobic rides, the threshold work, and the VO2 max blocks are what build the physiological “statue.” The race-specific work is the final polish.
Periodization: A well-structured training plan moves from general fitness to specific fitness. Focusing only on the specific component neglects the foundational adaptations that allow for higher performance peaks and greater durability over a season.
This myth stems from the idea that FTP is only relevant for steady-state efforts, which are rare in dynamic races like road races or criteriums.
The argument is that since racers rarely ride at a steady FTP for extended periods, training this specific intensity is a waste of time that could be better spent on polarized training (easy endurance and very hard intervals) or race-specific efforts.
The podcast refutes this by explaining the broader role of FTP and the aerobic system it represents.
1. FTP as an “Aerobic Anchor”: A higher FTP means that all sub-threshold efforts (the vast majority of a race) are performed at a lower relative intensity.
Example: If a race surges to 350 watts:
For a rider with a 300W FTP, this is a significant anaerobic effort, dipping deep into their reserves.
For a rider with a 350W FTP, this surge is handled almost entirely aerobically, costing them very little.
This ability to handle surges aerobically is what separates riders at the end of a hard race.
2. The “Matches” Analogy Refined: The common analogy of “burning matches” for hard efforts is flawed because it suggests discrete, limited units of energy. A better analogy is a barrel of gunpowder or a battery.
3. Periodization and Holistic Development: Successful long-term development requires stimulating all physiological systems. By neglecting a key training zone like threshold, an athlete creates a hole in their fitness. The most robust athletes are developed by training across the “rainbow of workouts.”
The “Ticket to the Dance”: You must have the minimum specific ability to compete (e.g., a fast enough flying 200m to qualify in track sprinting, enough FTP to stay in the pack in a road race).
Building the Engine: Once you have the “ticket,” long-term progress comes from building the general physiological engine (aerobic capacity, strength, fatigue resistance), not from endlessly practicing the specific event.
Soft Skills: Race tactics, cornering, positioning, and energy conservation are crucial skills that exist alongside physiology. A smart racer with a smaller engine can often beat a powerful but tactically naive racer. The best approach is to develop both in parallel.
The ultimate answer to “how should I train?” is always “it depends.” An athlete must consider:
Long-Term Goals: Are you trying to become a professional in 3 years, or win a local race next month? The training approach will be vastly different.
Strengths and Weaknesses: If you are constantly getting dropped on climbs, your weakness is aerobic, not your sprint. If you are always in the final group but finish 10th, you may need to work on sprint power or, more likely, race tactics and positioning.
Empirical Evidence: The best guide is your own experience. What training makes you feel your best on race day? Track your data, listen to your body, and don’t be afraid to deviate from dogma if you have personal evidence that another approach works better for you.