Shownotes

Stephen background

02:16 -

• I am currently the head coach for the AG2R La Mondiale Cycling team. I have held this position for the past two years, although my involvement with the team dates back to the end of 2018, which means I am now approaching eight years within the organisation.
• In total, I have been working as a coach in the WorldTour for almost eleven years, and I consider myself reasonably experienced at this stage.
• Before entering the professional coaching environment, I followed a fairly typical path for many coaches. As an athlete, I was average at best. I originally grew up in Ireland and played football, later transitioning into triathlon when I realised I had a natural aptitude for cycling and running, even if swimming was not my strongest discipline.
• I competed in triathlon for a couple of years before shifting fully into cycling, where I raced at a continental level. In 2011, I sustained a back injury, which pushed me to return to academia and complete my degree and master’s in sports physiology and nutrition.
• For several years, I worked as a university lecturer, teaching subjects related to the functioning of the human body and coaching in elite sport. It was genuinely my dream job, and I enjoyed my time there.
• However, after four or five years, I felt a sense of stagnation. Each academic year was largely the same, and although I loved teaching, I felt I was only operating at about 55–60% of my full capacity. I wanted something more.
• Around 2015–2016, I began coaching local amateur riders. That led to supporting stronger amateurs at the national level, and in 2016, I was offered the role of Head of Performance at Aqua Blue Sport, a Pro Continental team based in Ireland.
• At that time, I found myself juggling three jobs simultaneously: lecturer, sports scientist with a football team, and Head of Performance with a professional cycling squad.
• I enjoyed all three roles—the lecturing, the strength and conditioning and nutrition work, and the performance responsibilities within the pro cycling environment. Unfortunately, after two years, the team folded for financial reasons, and I assumed I would simply return fully to academic life, satisfied with having added that chapter to my career.
• Unexpectedly, an opportunity arose when I was invited to speak at the Science and Cycling Conference in 2018, held just before the Tour de France. I was asked to present on how we maximised performance at Aqua Blue Sport with a modest budget. 
• To be honest, I was not particularly eager to travel; I had already been away a lot that summer. It was my wife who encouraged me to go, assuring me it would be worthwhile and enjoyable.
• She was right. During that presentation, my current boss—who was then Head of Performance at AG2R La Mondiale—was in the audience. He liked what he saw, we had a coffee afterwards, and he offered me a full-time role.
• Ironically, AG2R La Mondiale was not a team I had initially imagined myself joining. It was a French organisation, I spoke no French, and most of the staff spoke very little English. Despite this, I accepted the opportunity, and eight years later, I am still with the team.
• One of the personal commitments I made when I joined was that, even if things did not work out professionally, I would at least walk away having learned a new skill. I was determined to learn French, even though languages had never been my strength.
• The first few years were challenging, but over time my French improved significantly, and today I am fluent. My five-year-old son is also fluent and attends school in France, and my wife now works here as well.
• Beyond the professional growth, these personal experiences have been incredibly meaningful and have enriched my life in ways I did not expect when I first accepted the role.

Team coaching setup

08:04 -

• When I reflect on the coaching structure within our team, I see clearly how much it has evolved over the past eight years. When I first joined AG2R La Mondiale in 2018, the setup consisted of a Head of Performance and three coaches.
• At that time, we were already considered progressive within French cycling, as most French teams still operated with one or two coaches and relied heavily on sports directors for rider support. Since then, the structure has expanded enormously and has become far more sophisticated.
• Today, we have one Head of Performance, me as Head Coach, and six full-time coaches working across our WorldTour squad of 28 to 30 riders. We also have a combined U19 and Continental programme, our so-called “Next Gen” group, where three additional coaches operate.
• Together, this means that we have moved from a staff of four coaches to a structure involving one Head of Performance, one Head Coach, six WorldTour coaches, two strength and conditioning coaches, and a further coaching team supporting the U19 and Continental levels.
• The growth in coaching resources has been significant, and it now allows us to support our athletes with a level of precision that was simply not possible several years ago.
• A central pillar of our philosophy is maintaining a very low coach-to-rider ratio. Each of our WorldTour coaches works with only six to eight riders.
• This is a luxury in the WorldTour environment and, in my view, essential for delivering the level of individualisation and daily support required for elite performance. In the Continental programme, which has thirteen riders, we appoint a lead coach and an assistant coach.
• The U19 squad, consisting of fifteen riders, follows the same model. My own role involves overseeing all coaches and all preparation across the WorldTour, Continental, and U19 groups. Although I coach four riders personally, my primary responsibility is ensuring coherence, quality, and continuity throughout the entire performance structure.
• This oversight is built on a shared coaching philosophy that we have developed carefully over the last two years. It is not about dictating specific methodologies, because there is no single way to build VO₂max, improve threshold, or develop sprint power.
• Instead, it is about having a unified way of working—a common set of principles that ensures consistency while still allowing individual coaches the freedom to apply the methods they believe best fit each rider.
• The philosophy rests on three core values. The first is collaboration. Historically, coaches in professional cycling worked in isolation and were often overly protective of their knowledge.
• We deliberately moved away from that model. We hold weekly group coaching meetings where everyone, including our younger or less experienced coaches, can contribute, ask questions, challenge each other, and build trust.
• This shared environment accelerates development and ensures that learnings move across the organisation, not just within isolated pockets of expertise.
• The second value is simplicity. Physiology, nutrition, and performance science can be complex, but complexity rarely leads to better adherence.
• My responsibility, and the responsibility of every coach on the team, is to distil the science into clear, digestible, actionable guidance. When instructions are simple, riders adhere better, and when adherence is high, performance improves.
• The third value is adaptability. We never tie ourselves to any single methodology—polarised training, block periodisation, traditional models, or otherwise.
• Instead, we look at best practice as defined by the scientific literature, good practice as defined by what works for a specific rider, and novel or emerging practices that may not have strong evidence yet but may still be valuable in context.
• We adjust our approach to match the needs, constraints, and personality of the individual rider. What matters is not ideological purity but performance outcomes.
• For me, coaching at this level is not just about what riders do but how they do it. The way information is delivered—the language, the framing, the level of detail—changes dramatically depending on whether I am speaking to a 17-year-old junior, a 20-year-old neo-pro, or a 36-year-old veteran with more than a decade of experience in the WorldTour. The information might be the same; the communication must be different.
• Across the team, riders benefit from a large multidisciplinary support network that includes medical staff, nutritionists, sports management, psychology, S&C specialists, bike fitters, and more.
• Our structure ensures that riders know what resources are available and that coaches guide them toward the support they need. We maintain a rider-centred, coach-led model in which athletes hold responsibility for their performance while being supported by a coordinated, collaborative, and highly skilled coaching group.
• This evolution—from a small staff of three coaches to a fully integrated, multi-level performance system—has been challenging but deeply rewarding. It has shaped the way I work and the way our entire organisation approaches the development of cyclists at every stage of their careers.

Junior pathway to World Tour

17:00 -

• When I speak about working with both 16-year-olds and 36-year-olds, it naturally leads to the question of how we structure a pathway for young athletes to progress toward the WorldTour. Over the past couple of years, we recognised that although we had a long-standing U19 squad and our WorldTour team, there was a missing link between the two. We repeatedly lost some of our best U19 riders simply because we did not have an intermediate step that could support their transition.
• That gap is now filled with the creation of our Continental development team. Today, our structure consists of three integrated levels: the U19 team, the Continental team, and the WorldTour team. This alignment allows us to follow a coherent long-term philosophy for athlete development.
• Within the U19 team, our objective is not merely to produce WorldTour riders but to help each athlete maximise their genetic potential. That is the fundamental measure of success. We bring U19 riders into our structure and allow them to develop at an appropriate pace while building the characteristics that underpin long-term performance.
• Those who progress into the Continental team benefit from a unique environment. Because the squad sits directly under the WorldTour umbrella, they are exposed to a range of U23 races, 1.1 and 1.2 events, and, selectively, they may also race with the WorldTour team at certain points during the year. This exposure allows them to understand what racing at the highest level feels like while continuing to refine the skills and attributes required to operate in that environment.
• The pathway is therefore intentional: the U19 team develops the foundational characteristics of performance; the Continental team develops skills, race craft, and adaptability while providing controlled exposure to the demands of top-level racing; and from there, the final step is the transition into the WorldTour. We have achieved a strong success rate with this model. Some riders progress directly from our Continental team to our own WorldTour roster, while others move to the WorldTour through different teams.
• In recent years, we have seen notable examples, including riders such as Paul Penhoët, Paul Lapeira—the French national champion in 2024—along with others like Paul Seixas, Léo Bisiaux. These successes reinforce how crucial this three-tier structure is for the long-term vision of the organisation.
• This integrated pathway not only strengthens the development of young athletes but also ensures the sustainability and competitive future of the entire team.

Predicting success

19:30 -

• At the U19 level, I often reflect on whether it is truly possible to predict, with any meaningful degree of accuracy, which riders will eventually make the step to the WorldTour.
• The more time I spend mentoring the coaches who work directly with this age group, the more I recognise the complexity of that question. Scientifically, we are all familiar with the principles of long-term athlete development, and we know that early high performance does not reliably predict elite performance in adulthood.
• Early specialisation brings clear risks: burnout, injury, and a higher likelihood of dropping out. High performance at sixteen or seventeen does not guarantee high performance at twenty-five.
• Despite this, the reality is that WorldTour teams—including ours—remain part of a system that inevitably gravitates toward selecting the most physically developed U17 and U18 riders.
• Every team scans the junior races looking for the strongest performers, hoping they will evolve into the exceptions who are able to sustain long-term success. But the truth is that identifying future WorldTour athletes at that age is far from straightforward.
• There are, however, certain indicators that can guide our assessments. On the psychological side, we can evaluate whether a young rider possesses the mental robustness required for the demands of professional cycling: the training load, the racing intensity, and the lifestyle pressures that come with the sport. These qualities matter enormously.
• Physiologically, we examine characteristics such as VO₂max, durability, and threshold power—key determinants of long-term potential. But the metric I consider most informative is the relationship between threshold power and VO₂max.
• If a young rider’s threshold is already very close to their VO₂max, it suggests that they may be close to their physiological ceiling. Conversely, if there is still a significant gap between the two, it indicates room for meaningful development; in other words, the athlete is trainable.
• Trainability is ultimately what we—and most teams—are trying to identify. We look for riders who still have genuine capacity to improve, not just riders who are already dominant at the junior level.
• This means tracking their key performance indicators over time, observing how they adapt to training stimuli, and monitoring the rate and consistency of their progression.
• When we see steady development, resilience, and an ability to absorb training load, those are the riders to whom we can provide targeted support and help make the next step.
• Predicting future WorldTour success at sixteen or seventeen will never be an exact science, but with a structured approach that integrates psychological insight, physiological analysis, and longitudinal tracking, we can significantly improve our understanding of which young athletes have the potential to progress.

Secrecy about cycling training

23:15 -

• When I think about the value of collaboration within our coaching group, it connects directly to a question that often comes up about secrecy in professional cycling.
• There is a perception—especially from the outside—that coaches and teams are extremely protective of their intellectual property, as if there are secret training sessions or unique programs that can turn an average rider into a Grand Tour winner.
• I understand why this perception exists, but from my experience inside the WorldTour environment for the past twelve years, the reality is quite different.
• If I go back seven, eight, or nine years, there was certainly more of a belief that some teams possessed special workouts or exclusive methodologies. Even I was guilty of that mindset earlier in my career; I was very protective of what I thought was “my IP.”
• I didn’t want anyone to know what I was doing. But the more experience I gained—and particularly after working alongside coaches who have guided riders to victories in Paris–Roubaix, the Giro d’Italia, and the green jersey at the Tour de France—the more obvious it became that there really are no secret sessions. At this level, everyone understands the demands of the sport.
• To be successful, a rider needs endurance, a high VO₂max, durability, and the ability to sustain high power over long periods. They must respond to attacks, manage positioning, and—in the case of sprinters—survive climbs before producing peak power. These demands are not mysteries, and modern data has made them clearer than ever.
• Because of that, the fundamentals of training are not where the secrecy lies. There is no magic interval set that only one team has access to. If an athlete needs to improve sprint power or VO₂max, we all know how to train those qualities.
• What has changed—and where some protective behaviour still exists—is the extent to which teams now invest in performance science. The innovation is happening in aerodynamics, performance simulations, equipment development, modelling tools, and areas such as strength training or new types of conditioning, where the scientific foundation may still be developing.
• Those are the domains where teams experiment, where they might test emerging ideas, and where they naturally prefer not to disclose everything publicly.
• I also believe that the growth of scientific conferences, such as the Science and Cycling Conference and others, has helped shift the culture. Coaches today are far more open to sharing information, learning from one another, and discussing methodologies than they were a decade ago.
• There is still some discretion—teams will hide specific power files or withhold the exact details of race-winning interval sets—but the secrecy is much less about unique training plans and much more about how teams apply their knowledge through innovation, integration, and execution.
• At the end of the day, it truly is not about what riders are doing but how they are doing it. The coaching subtleties, the delivery of information, the timing, the structure, the adaptation to individual needs—those are the real differentiators.
• That is where the expertise sits, and that is why collaboration within our coaching group has become such an essential part of our philosophy.

Core training principles

26:22 -

• When I think about my core coaching methodology, the starting point is always profiling. Whenever I begin working with a new rider—whether they are a young professional or an experienced WorldTour athlete—the first step is to understand who they are as an athlete.
• I look at their attributes, their strengths, their limitations, and the type of rider they naturally are: sprinter, classics specialist, climber, or a young athlete whose profile is still emerging.
• This profiling gives me a clear picture of their physiological background, their training age, and the workloads they have or have not been exposed to in previous seasons.
• This has become increasingly important because the sport is shifting toward much younger professionals. When I look back just five years, the youngest rider in our WorldTour roster was twenty-three. Today, we have five riders who are under twenty-one.
• That fundamentally changes how we coach. A nineteen- or twenty-year-old neo-pro cannot be trained in the same manner as a seasoned WorldTour rider who is accustomed to logging nine hundred to one thousand hours of training per year and covering thirty thousand kilometres or more.
• For young riders, the task is far more progressive and stepwise. Many come in having completed fifteen to nineteen thousand kilometres a year, and it would be irresponsible and counterproductive to suddenly push them to twenty-five thousand.
• Instead, we increase their volume gradually—often by five to eight thousand kilometres per year—with the understanding that this growth will naturally occur through training camps, longer stage races, and an increased race calendar. For these young athletes, building robustness through consistent volume is the most important first step.
• With experienced riders, the approach becomes much more targeted. It always returns to the demands of the event they are preparing for. For example, I coached Félix Gall and Ben O’Connor over the last couple of years.
• Their objectives were built around Grand Tours, where the physiological requirements are extremely clear. My role as their coach is not simply to add five watts to their threshold; it is to prepare them to meet the demands required to finish on the podium or in the top five of a Grand Tour.
• With Felix, our goal in 2023 was a top-five performance at the Tour de France, which he achieved. We analysed the specific demands of the decisive climbs—efforts in the six-point-two to six-point-six watts per kilogram range for twenty to forty minutes—and much of his preparation revolved around becoming capable and repeatable at exactly those intensities. 
• For classic riders, the process is similar. We study the demands of races such as Paris–Roubaix, Flanders, Omloop, and Kuurne. In these events, speeds have increased, and the intensity distribution has shifted dramatically.
• Five years ago, the race intensity might have averaged 3.6–3.9 W/kg; now, it regularly reaches 4.2–4.5 W/kg over five hours, with a sprint still required at the end. To prepare for that, riders must be able to sustain those outputs for prolonged periods while retaining the ability to produce race-winning power.
• We achieve this through long, demanding camps, extended exposures to race-pace work, and deliberate periods where we mimic the physiological stress of the event. Everything we do is anchored to the demands of the race.
• In terms of training philosophy, we do not subscribe rigidly to one methodology. We are not purely polarised nor purely block-periodised. Instead, we adopt a wave-periodisation model. For example, with classic riders, this time of year is dedicated to a polarised structure—focusing heavily on VO₂max and low-intensity endurance.
• When January arrives, we transition into more block-periodised work with a strong emphasis on race-specific intensity. The same applies to climbers and sprinters, but with the content tailored to the physiological demands of their discipline.

Wave periodization

31:45 -

• When I refer to wave periodisation, what I mean is a structured approach in which different training emphases flow in and out of each other in repeated cycles rather than following a strictly linear or singular periodisation model.
• At times, the description resembles reverse periodisation—moving from a strong VO₂max focus into race-specific work—but the defining characteristic of wave periodisation is that this alternation repeats and adapts over the season.
• The “wave” comes from the deliberate sequencing of phases in which the balance between low-intensity and high-intensity work shifts gradually rather than abruptly.
• For example, we will have periods that are clearly polarised, where the emphasis is strongly on VO₂max and low-intensity endurance. From there, we move into a transitional phase where the distribution becomes more blended—slightly higher low-intensity volume, slightly reduced high-intensity load—before progressing into a block that emphasises race-specific intensity.
• After key objectives, such as the Spring Classics, we return again toward the earlier emphasis, which is why the pattern forms a wave across the season.
• In practice, these waves usually occur in blocks of two or three weeks, followed by short transition phases before the next wave begins. The pattern is not rigid.
• If a rider is responding exceptionally well to a given stimulus, I am comfortable extending that phase to maximise adaptation. Conversely, if the response is poor or if the rider shows signs of fatigue or stagnation, we can switch the emphasis earlier and move into a different methodological phase. The adaptability of the model is one of its greatest strengths.
• This flexibility applies primarily to experienced riders who already have large training histories and high workloads. They require more nuanced manipulation of stimulus, and their preparation must be tightly aligned with the specific demands of their target races.
• For younger riders, however, the approach is more straightforward. Their periodisation tends to resemble a more traditional block structure because they are still developing basic physiological capacities and simply do not have the accumulated volume that older riders possess. With them, the priority is progressive and consistent volume, supported by clear and focused physiological work.

Training volume for experienced riders

33:57 -

• When discussing volume, especially with older and more experienced riders, it is important to recognise that while they already possess a deep aerobic foundation, volume remains one of the most influential variables in endurance performance.
• The difference between a strong U23 rider and a true WorldTour athlete is often explained by volume—years of accumulated hours that build resilience, durability, and fatigue resistance. That long-term exposure cannot be replaced by short-term interventions.
• However, volume is not the sole determinant of performance, and it is certainly not something we treat as fixed or untouchable. Over the years, I have seen riders come off seasons where their training was built heavily around very high volumes with less emphasis on high-intensity work.
• In those cases, introducing a block of significantly reduced volume while increasing the focus on anaerobic capacity, sprint development, or VO₂max can produce remarkable responses.
• When we deliberately decrease total load, it creates space to train specific determinants of performance more effectively. After that block, we layer the volume back in, and the athlete often progresses again.
• That said, you can never completely step away from volume—especially when preparing for the Classics or entering the build-up to a Grand Tour. But there are strategic windows, particularly in winter or early pre-season, where the overall hours can be reduced.
• Many of the riders I coach live in Northern Europe, where weather conditions are harsh, daylight is limited, and indoor training becomes unavoidable. Some also compete on the track during the winter, which naturally limits their total hours.
• During these periods, we use the environment to our advantage and focus on specific qualities such as VO₂max or anaerobic capacity. Once we approach racing blocks, the volume inevitably builds back up.
• In terms of annual training hours, the typical range for WorldTour riders is relatively narrow—roughly 880 to 1,000 hours per year on the bike, sometimes reaching 1,100 for certain profiles. But there are outliers, and they are fascinating.
• I know riders who thrive on exceptionally high-intensity training with comparatively low total hours. Some world-class professionals perform at 600 to 700 hours per year, which sounds extraordinary, yet they succeed because their training is extremely targeted and interval-based. This approach can work, but it is difficult to sustain over long periods.
• At the opposite end of the spectrum, there are riders who push well beyond 1,100 hours annually, relying heavily on volume as their primary driver of adaptation. That too can work, but it requires the right physiology, the right environment, and exceptional robustness.
• Within my own group, I have seen meaningful variation. For example, when I coached Ben O’Connor—who finished top five in two Grand Tours last season and placed second at the World Championships—his annual volume was around 850 hours.
• For a GC rider, that is relatively low, but his training was exceptionally high-quality. He lives in Andorra, so nearly every ride includes significant elevation gain, and he trains with tremendous motivation. The density and specificity of that work compensated for slightly lower total hours.
• So while there is a general range that most WorldTour riders fall into, the outliers demonstrate that there is no single formula. What matters is identifying what each athlete responds to, understanding the demands of their target events, and adjusting volume and intensity accordingly.

Training intensity

37:51 -

• When I look at intensity distribution within a training week or microcycle, I can say with confidence that the amount of high-intensity work has increased in recent years.
• A major reason is that riders are now far better educated and far better equipped in terms of fueling strategies. It wasn’t long ago that many were training on 30–50 grams of carbohydrate per hour; now it is commonplace for riders to fuel with 80, 90, or even 120 grams per hour. This shift allows athletes to tolerate more intensity, recover more effectively, and absorb a higher overall training load.
• In a typical week—especially at this time of year when many riders are still in a pre-season building phase—the minimum intensity exposure will be two high-intensity sessions. Most riders will complete three.
• These sessions might include VO₂max work or sprint work, depending on their profile and objectives. Even in periods focused primarily on building volume, we maintain some exposure to high-intensity efforts to ensure that key physiological qualities do not stagnate.
• Beyond these two or three dedicated sessions, there are also smaller exposures to intensity integrated into longer endurance rides. Riders might complete “spike endurance” sessions where a five- or six-hour ride includes dispersed efforts such as short sprints or brief high-intensity accelerations.
• These efforts might be placed at the beginning of a ride when they are fresh, or at the end when they are fatigued, to stimulate different adaptations. These embedded efforts create an additional layer of intensity without counting as full high-intensity sessions.
• When I refer to an actual intensity session, I am talking about deliberate exposure to a meaningful cumulative duration at VO₂max power. For example, at this time of year, many of our VO₂max sessions involve total exposures ranging from twelve to twenty minutes. Early phases might be structured around twelve to sixteen minutes, but we regularly progress riders toward eighteen or even twenty minutes of total VO₂max work in a single session. That is what constitutes a true high-intensity day.
• The shorter spike efforts that riders perform within endurance rides—twenty-second accelerations or similar efforts above VO₂max, often exceeding 600–650 watts—do not accumulate substantial total time at high intensity.
• Instead, they provide neuromuscular stimulus, add variability to the ride, and reflect real-world race demands. These exposures supplement the structured high-intensity work rather than replacing it.
• This combination of structured VO₂max sessions, sprint or anaerobic work, and distributed high-intensity exposures within endurance rides has become central to modern preparation.
• It stands in contrast to the approach of eight or nine years ago, when many riders spent entire winters riding strictly in zone two and avoided high-intensity work until late January. The sport has evolved, and our training strategies reflect that evolution.

Recovery methods

41:05 -

• When I think about recovery within a microcycle or mesocycle, it forms one of the most critical components of the entire training process. At this time of year, especially, we follow a relatively consistent structure. I always include at least one easy day—typically an hour to an hour and a half of very low-intensity riding.
• For some riders, this might mean forty-five minutes on the rollers; for others, it can be an hour riding to the coffee shop with friends. The key is that the rider stays active without accumulating meaningful load.
• Alongside that, we always include one full rest day off the bike. On this day, riders may complete mobility work, stretching, strength and conditioning, or simply light off-bike activity such as walking or hiking.
• I place a lot of emphasis on this because one of the concerning issues in endurance sports is the prevalence of osteopenia and low bone density. Many professional cyclists show this pattern, and I am committed to ensuring we build more robust athletes.
• Using the winter months—November, December, early January—we encourage off-bike strength, load-bearing activities, and movement patterns that support bone health. It is a vital part of preparing athletes not just for performance but also for long-term health.
• The purpose of these recovery days is not to leave the rider completely exhausted to the point where they must lie on the sofa all day. That is not productive.
• Recovery should support consistency. I never want to see a pattern of three days “full gas,” one day where the rider is destroyed, followed by another couple of heavy days and another collapse. Consistency is the priority. One very easy ride and one day off the bike, complemented by low-impact or load-bearing work, is the rhythm we use.
• As for larger recovery structures—such as the traditional three weeks of load followed by one week of deload—we have adapted that concept. We no longer use the term "deload" but rather “transition periods.”
• These transition periods are shorter, typically three to four days, and are used to reinforce to the rider that we are still focused on recovery, absorption, and adaptation rather than giving them a week to disengage completely. In the winter, we might carry out a three- or four-week build followed by a short transition period, and then repeat the cycle. The length and timing depend on the rider and the workload they have accumulated.
• However, once the season begins, the ability to adhere to a neat three-weeks-on, one-week-off schedule disappears. From February onward—especially for riders racing in Australia or early-season European races—the structure becomes much more fluid.
• In-season, it might be two weeks of building followed by a shorter transition period or a taper into competition. Everything becomes highly individual and race-dependent, and rigid periodisation models are no longer realistic.

Training and tapering during race season

46:00 -

• When I think about tapering and recovery during the race season, it becomes clear how different cycling is from sports like triathlon. In triathlon, you can build for months toward a single race and arrive perfectly tapered on that specific day.
• In WorldTour cycling, that luxury almost never exists. Although we have key events—Milan–San Remo, the cobbled Classics, Liège–Bastogne–Liège, the Giro, the Tour, the Olympics, the World Championships—the reality is that riders need to perform well almost all year. They cannot afford to be “off” for long stretches of the season.
• That means we work with a series of micro-tapers rather than a single, traditional taper. Before major events, I focus on balancing accumulated load with race exposure so the rider arrives ready to perform, but without undergoing a full peak as you would in an endurance sport like marathon running or Ironman.
• For example, if we take Paris–Roubaix as a case study, the preparation begins months earlier with a strong block in December and January. Then the rider enters the Algarve or Ruta del Sol, followed by the Opening Weekend.
• In fact, Opening Weekend has become an important predictor. History shows that if a rider is not performing well at Omloop Het Nieuwsblad or Kuurne–Brussels–Kuurne in late February, it is extremely unlikely that they will be competitive at the end of April. The calendar is simply too compressed. There is no time for a distinct training phase; instead, the races themselves become the training.
• A typical Classics schedule might include Omloop, Kuurne, Paris–Nice or Tirreno–Adriatico, Milan–San Remo, E3, Gent–Wevelgem, Dwars door Vlaanderen, the Tour of Flanders, and Paris–Roubaix.
• There is no traditional build phase between these races. Instead, we use the races to accumulate load, and after certain events—like Dwars door Vlaanderen or Gent–Wevelgem—we add high-intensity activation sessions the following day so the race weekend becomes a purposeful training block rather than just competition.
• Only in the final days before a major one-day objective do we introduce true freshness. Five days out from the race, we might include one or two very easy days, followed by reconnaissance sessions, then a pre-race ride. But even then, the rider must not arrive “too fresh.”
• In cycling, several days of very easy riding can lead to the sensation riders call “blocked legs,” where the neuromuscular system feels sluggish. It is more important that a rider feels activated and responsive than perfectly rested on paper.
• Tapering for Grand Tours is far more straightforward. The preparation typically consists of a training camp at altitude, followed by a stage race such as Critérium du Dauphiné or Tour de Suisse. After that, the rider tapers directly into the start of the Tour or into the key GC period planned within the race.
• Because this preparation block is continuous and stable—unlike the chaotic one-day-race calendar—the process is much simpler. We have executed this well in recent years, with riders such as Félix Gall arriving at the Tour de France precisely as intended. The same applies to previous successes in the Giro and the Vuelta.
• Grand Tour tapering works because the training and racing rhythm leading into the event is consistent. One-day racing does not offer that stability, which is why tapering for Classics is a balancing act, not a fixed formula.

Checking the rider’s response to training

51:20 -

• When it comes to determining whether a rider is responding to training, the key is to remain adaptable and unafraid to change the plan. This is something I mentioned earlier, and it becomes more important the longer I coach.
• No training strategy—no matter how theoretically sound—should ever become rigid. The rider’s response must dictate the direction we take.
• To evaluate whether training is working, we combine several layers of information. The first and perhaps most important is subjective feedback. Riders give us daily insights into how they feel, how their bodies are responding, and how they perceive the load.
• This information is invaluable. Alongside subjective feedback, we continuously monitor basic physiological markers and overall readiness. We also use racing itself as a reference point; race performance gives us one of the clearest indications of whether the training is translating into real-world output.
• Beyond that, we incorporate structured testing at key points. We do not test constantly, but we use it strategically to inform decisions. One example is the critical power and W′ testing protocol. Riders may not enjoy it—because it is extremely demanding—but it provides a clear evaluation of their current physical capacity.
• We also perform lactate testing throughout the season. If a rider climbs at 350 watts in January and produces a lactate of 3.6 mmol, and by March they can produce the same power at 1.8 or 1.9 mmol, then we know adaptation is occurring. These objective markers allow us to map progress, validate training decisions, and adjust when necessary.
• When the feedback—subjective, physiological, or performance-based—is positive, we continue with the plan. The difficult moments come when the response is not what we expect. In those cases, we step back and analyse the training process.
• This is where the strength of a coaching group becomes essential. No coach works in isolation; each of us brings experiences with different riders, different problems, and different solutions. When something is not working, the group collaborates to identify the issue and find a new direction.
• A clear example from my own experience involved a highly successful rider who joined us at the age of thirty-four. He had trained a certain way his entire career, but at that time, our team was strongly influenced by the scientific trend toward polarised training.
• We applied a strict polarised model: all easy riding, or super hard intervals, and nothing in the middle. In hindsight, it was the wrong approach for him. He needed mid-range work—time spent in the 320–360 watt range—to build durability and resistance. Without it, he had no resilience in races. By the time we realised the mismatch, several months had already passed.
• We corrected it by redefining his training zones and restoring the mid-intensity work that had been the foundation of his career. The experience taught me a great deal, especially regarding communication.
• At the time, the rider trusted the system so much that he did not speak up even when the training didn’t feel right. Today, we work hard to ensure that riders feel comfortable giving honest feedback. Open communication allows us to make faster, better-informed adjustments. It prevents months of training from going in the wrong direction.

Reasons for the athlete's lack of progress

55:10 -

• When things are not working in training, experience has taught me that the most common issue is not load—too much or too little—but the wrong type of training. More specifically, it is a mismatch between the training being prescribed and the rider’s actual physiology.
• If we misunderstand where a rider is already well developed and where they genuinely need to improve, then we risk investing time in qualities that are already near their ceiling. The return on that investment becomes very small.
• What often happens next is that we mistakenly try to solve the lack of progress by doing even more of the same thing, which only compounds the problem. In that situation, we are simply doing more of the wrong work, and the negative response grows larger.
• This connects closely to one of the most interesting questions in coaching: whether we should focus on strengths or on weaknesses. I have faced this many times.
• In the example of the rider I mentioned earlier—the one who had always thrived on mid-range work—his strength happened to be the very thing he still responded to, even late in his career. Meanwhile, the theoretically “weak” area produced no meaningful adaptation.
• I have seen this repeatedly: sometimes you attempt to develop a weak area because it looks like the obvious place for improvement, and yet the athlete does not respond to that stimulus at all. Meanwhile, the area where they are already strong continues to produce adaptation, albeit at a slower rate than earlier in their career.
• Because of this, I tell the coaches I work with something very simple: give the rider a little of what they want, and a lot of what they need. Giving them a little of what they want keeps them motivated and allows them to see good numbers in training. But the bulk of the work must address what they need—the weaknesses, the limiting factors, the characteristics required for their event demands.
• Young riders often struggle with this balance. It is easy to take a talented young climber and spend all year climbing, or to take a gifted time trialist and spend the whole year in the wind tunnel.
• But that does not build a complete athlete. A climber still needs time trial capacity, absolute power, technical ability, and robustness for flat racing. A time trialist needs to improve climbing, bunch positioning, and accelerations. If we neglect these weaker attributes, the rider becomes one-dimensional and vulnerable.
• At the same time, there is a minimum threshold that each weakness must meet. A weakness only becomes a problem when it is limiting the athlete’s ability to perform in the environment where their strength should matter.
• For instance, we may have a world-class climber who weighs fifty-two or fifty-three kilos and can produce exceptional watts per kilo. But if their absolute power on the flat is too low, they struggle to stay in the front group, and then it doesn’t matter how good they are in the mountains.
• In those cases, we deliberately try to increase their robustness—sometimes encouraging weight gain—because the additional absolute power allows them to arrive at the climb in a position where their strength can actually be used.
• So the goal is not simply to choose strengths or weaknesses. It is to ensure that weaknesses are raised to a level where they no longer limit performance, while strengths continue to be nurtured in a way that the athlete finds motivating and meaningful. This balance—knowing when to push, when to adjust, and when to shift the emphasis—is at the core of coaching at the highest level.

General questions

1:00:29 -

Indoor Training

Indoor training has become an essential tool in the WorldTour. Historically, it was used only during bad weather, but now it plays multiple roles. It is an excellent environment for heat training, controlled testing, and precision work. Every rider I coach now owns a home trainer—something that was far from the norm ten years ago. I consider indoor training a highly valuable tool that we use strategically throughout the year.

Altitude Training

Altitude training is extremely important. The old idea of “responders and non-responders” has evolved; in my view, everyone can respond well if the preparation is correct. That includes monitoring iron levels and general health before going to camp. Altitude has become essential for arriving at peak condition before a Grand Tour, and it is used increasingly by Classics riders as well. Our best riders will complete at least one, and usually two, altitude camps per season—sometimes even three depending on the year.

Durability / Fatigue Resistance

Durability has become a critical performance factor in the WorldTour. When I analyse the strongest riders, one of the clearest markers is the difference between their fresh power and their power after four, five, or six hours of racing—after several thousand kilojoules. The smaller the gap, the higher their performance level.

To develop durability, the primary driver remains volume and consistently performing efforts in a fatigued state. Interestingly, this past season, I saw firsthand that there is also a significant genetic component. We had a young rider with limited training history who displayed exceptional durability nonetheless. Still, for most riders, structured volume remains the foundation.

Torque Training

Torque training is something I did not value early in my career because I followed the scientific literature very strictly. Over time, new evidence—some for, some against—has shaped my perspective, and today I find it useful. For climbers, high-torque work is important because many races, especially in the Vuelta, feature extremely steep climbs where torque production is decisive. We typically prescribe torque intervals between one and ten minutes, rarely beyond that. For sprinters, we integrate high-torque sprints and over-gear work. The key is using it strategically at the right moments of the year.

Threshold Training

Threshold training sits firmly within race-specific preparation. During polarised phases—where the emphasis is VO₂max work and low-intensity endurance—we include very little threshold work. As we transition into race-specific phases, threshold becomes essential.

For Classics riders, threshold work aligns with the demands of racing at 4–4.5 W/kg for long periods. For climbers and GC riders, threshold work often falls in the 5-6+ W/kg range depending on the individual. These sessions typically occur late in the preparation for major objectives.

Race-Specific Threshold Structure (Critical Power Work)

The threshold work we prescribe is largely based on critical power. Grand Tour climbs rarely involve a steady twenty-minute effort from a standstill. Instead, real race demands often involve a hard fight into the base of the climb—sometimes five minutes at VO₂max—followed by twenty minutes at threshold.

Because of that, we train both straight threshold and “pre-loaded” threshold. Straight threshold builds the underlying physiological capacity. Pre-loaded threshold replicates racing by creating an oxygen deficit before settling into CP.

An example from Félix Gall’s altitude camp last year illustrates this well. We completed four repetitions of twenty-four minutes on Pla d’Adet. The first was progressive:

• 8 minutes at 6.2 W/kg
• 8 minutes at 6.4 W/kg
• 8 minutes at 6.6 W/kg

The second included a pre-load:

• 2 minutes at 7.0–7.2 W/kg
• Followed by 6 minutes at 6.0 W/kg
• 6 minutes at 6.2 W/kg
• 6 minutes at 6.4 W/kg

The subsequent intervals were adjusted based on his feedback. This approach allows us to simulate Grand Tour racing far more effectively than a simple steady threshold effort.

Physiological Testing vs Field Testing vs Race Data

We rely on all three. Laboratory testing is most valuable in the early part of the season—November and December—to evaluate basic physiological parameters such as VO₂max, metabolic thresholds, and general metabolic efficiency.

As soon as we enter January, field testing becomes the primary tool. We use critical power testing and lactate assessments conducted on the road. Occasionally, if there is space in the calendar—which is increasingly rare—we may repeat lab testing mid-season.

Once the racing begins, race data becomes the most important source of information. It guides decisions, validates training direction, and highlights the specific demands the rider must prepare for. The blend of lab, field, and race data is essential, but each has its place in the season.

Using Rider Profiles to Guide Training

Profiling the rider is essential. With young climbers, priority is high volume and the introduction of threshold work, as their VO₂max is typically already strong. Classics riders need exposure to the evolving demands of modern racing, which has changed dramatically over the last six or seven years. Same races, completely different intensity profiles.

However, the most important part of profiling is understanding the person—not just the physiology. Coaching is fundamentally about communication: learning how a rider processes information, what they need emotionally, and how they interpret training. That relationship allows me to guide them more effectively than any physiological test on its own.

Amateur triathletes cycling training

1:10:30 -

• Although I have not coached amateur athletes for more than a decade, I still have a strong sense of the principles that can help them maximise performance—especially when they are limited to ten or twelve hours of training per week. Compared to WorldTour cycling, that is a modest load, which means the priority is to extract the greatest possible return on every hour invested.
• In many ways, I can use myself as an example because I also train within time constraints. When you have limited hours, the key is to maximise the quality of the training, and that means giving yourself a little of what you enjoy but a lot of what you need.
• Practically, this often means including one or two exposures to unstructured high intensity—something like Zwift racing during the winter. These sessions tap into the upper limits of your physiological capacity and provide a stimulus that is hard to replicate in structured intervals. Unstructured intensity can be extremely valuable for amateur athletes.
• But those high-intensity exposures must be complemented by low-intensity endurance work. For a time-crunched athlete, a more polarised approach is usually more effective.
• Spending too much time in that mid-range, Zone 3–type effort often leads athletes to chase fatigue rather than performance. I did this myself years ago. I used to equate feeling tired and beaten up with progress, but that is not how adaptation works. The goal is to chase performance, not fatigue.
• This is one reason I believe VO₂max-oriented training—or high-intensity work in general—is even more important for amateurs than for professionals. Many amateur athletes come into endurance sports later in life. They may have never been exposed to repeated high-intensity work in their youth, meaning their VO₂max may be fundamentally underdeveloped. There is enormous potential for improvement simply because that area has never been trained properly.
• Additionally, athletes in their mid-thirties and older face the natural age-related decline in VO₂max. High-intensity work helps delay that decline, or at the very least reduces its rate. So for adult-onset athletes and older athletes alike, VO₂max training offers a substantial return on investment and should not be neglected.
• Beyond training structure, there are a few other areas where amateurs can make meaningful gains. The first is sleep. It is one of the most underrated performance enhancers available.
• Working with elite athletes has shown me that when we optimise sleep, everything else improves—training quality, mood, recovery, consistency. If amateurs focus even slightly more on their sleep routines, the benefits can be enormous.
• Nutrition is the other major pillar. Under-fueling is still common among amateurs, especially during training sessions. Many athletes avoid taking in carbohydrates because they believe it will improve fat burning or that they should feel depleted to make the session worthwhile. This is a mistake.
• Proper fueling during a ride not only improves session quality but also significantly reduces the post-session hunger that often leads to overeating. I know this from personal experience: years ago, I used to finish a hard two-hour session starving and then raid the fridge because I had not fueled properly on the bike.
• Simple changes—like taking carbohydrates during the session—make both the training and the recovery far more effective.
• So, for amateur athletes with limited hours, my main advice is this: include small exposures of high intensity, complement them with quality low-intensity volume, prioritise sleep, and fuel properly during training. These principles will maximise performance far more effectively than trying to chase fatigue or mimic the training of WorldTour riders.

Reflective questions

1:16:00 -

What advice would you give your younger self at an earlier point in your career?

If I were advising my younger self, I would probably start by saying: learn French. It is amusing to say now, but it genuinely would have made parts of my career easier. Reflecting more broadly, I grew up in a small village in Ireland where I only ever knew one sport, and I played that single sport from the age of six until twenty-two. In hindsight, I regret not exposing myself to different sports earlier in life. Had I explored endurance sports or other disciplines sooner, I might have developed a wider range of motor skills and learned more about my own physical capabilities.

Aside from that, I believe every experience I had—my studies, my travel, my early coaching steps—played a meaningful role in shaping where I am today. I cannot say I would change much. But yes, learning French earlier and diversifying my athletic experiences during my teenage years would be the two things I would highlight.

Is there something you are currently trying to learn more about or focusing on in your development?

Right now, I am fascinated by the question of what is physiologically possible for elite cyclists. Riders are producing numbers today that simply did not seem achievable fifteen years ago. When I studied physiology, I was completely absorbed in the science—VO₂max ceilings, power limits, metabolic thresholds—but over the years I drifted slightly away from that academic depth as coaching took over.

Recently, I have found myself returning to that curiosity. The sport is evolving so rapidly that many concepts we once believed to be fixed have now shifted. Athletes are getting faster every single year, and the physiological profiles required to win major races are far beyond what earlier literature described. I am genuinely interested in exploring how far human performance can go and what it takes to prepare athletes to reach the absolute peak of their potential.

To support that, I have returned to reading scientific papers, listening to experts, and engaging with new research. It has reignited my interest in physiology and my desire to keep improving as a coach.

What physiological limits did you learn as a student that no longer seem to apply today?

When I was studying physiology, certain benchmarks were considered extremely high. A functional threshold of 5 W/kg was exceptional, and a VO₂max at 7 W/kg was seen as world-class. Now, those numbers barely place you in the first or second group on a major Grand Tour climb. Riders need thresholds around 6 W/kg simply to remain competitive.

The same is true for VO₂max. The values we see today in elite cycling are far beyond what earlier textbooks proposed as realistic. Another area that has shifted is training volume. When I was a student, the idea of consistently completing 20–30-hour training weeks seemed physiologically unsustainable. Now, it is normal for top riders.

Nutrition has also transformed. The belief that athletes could only absorb 60 g of carbohydrate per hour has been erased. Many riders now consume 120 g per hour or more, supported by improved fueling strategies and scientific understanding.

All of this shows how quickly the sport—and the science—has progressed.

Do you think anyone besides Pogacar can realistically challenge him in the next few years?

Pogacar has been exceptional across every aspect of cycling—climbing, time trialling, classics, and one-day races. He is the complete rider. His dominance sets a benchmark for everyone else.

But I believe the gap will close over the next one to three years. There are more young riders coming through with extraordinary potential, and the collective knowledge within the sport is stronger now than it was when Pogacar first emerged. As teams become more sophisticated and as younger athletes enter with deeper training backgrounds, the overall level will rise.

The unknown variable is longevity. We are seeing nineteen- and twenty-year-olds performing at world-class levels. The question is whether they can maintain that progression into their late twenties and early thirties. That remains to be seen.

But in short, yes—I believe others will reach his level, and I expect to see a 20- or 21-year-old winning a Grand Tour in the next few seasons.

When evaluating someone like Pogacar, do you assess VO₂max data, or do you rely more on reverse-engineering his performance in races?

For riders at Pogacar’s level, VO₂max numbers are almost irrelevant. Whether his VO₂max is 90, 95, or 100 mL/kg/min does not matter to me. What matters is what he does in races, because that is the reality we have to prepare for.

We rely on reverse-engineering. I have coached riders who have followed him on climbs for short periods, and I can see the power required to do that. That gives us a target. My job is not to add 5–10 watts to someone’s threshold; it is to prepare them to compete with Pogacar, Vingegaard, or whoever else is at that level.

Race performance is the most truth-telling data we have. For me, that is what guides our preparation far more than laboratory VO₂max numbers.

What is the best or most influential book you have read?

One book that stands out is Pebbles of Perception. I read it several years ago after it was recommended to me by a rowing coach. The essence of the book is about learning to ask better questions and becoming more curious. It provides a simple but powerful framework for decision-making, which is a critical part of coaching.

As coaches, we make dozens of decisions every day—session design, rest days, periodisation choices. Sometimes you doubt yourself. The book helped me understand that as long as I follow a clear reasoning process, ask the right questions, and understand the logic behind my decision, I can be confident in it—even if the outcome is not perfect.

It has influenced how I think, how I speak to riders, and how I manage the inherently chaotic environment of professional cycling. I believe the author is a Swedish behavioural psychologist, though I would not want to say that with absolute certainty. What matters is that the book translated surprisingly well into sport, despite not being written specifically for athletes or coaches.

LINKS AND RESOURCES

• Decathlon AG2R La Mondiale website, Instagram, and Youtube
• Including sprint training in cycling – training responses and peformance improvements with Nicki Winfield Almquist, PhD | EP#300
• Tour de Physiology: The Exceptional Power Outputs and VO2 of Climbing in the Tour de France - Ole Kristian Berg 2025
• Pebbles of Perception: How a Few Good Choices make All the Difference - book by Laurence Endersen