Shownotes

Peter’s background

00:45 -

• I am Peter Leo, originally from Austria, although I currently work in Australia. My academic background is in sports science, and over the past years I have progressively shifted my professional focus toward high-performance coaching in both cycling and triathlon.
• Triathlon has always been a personal passion of mine, closely connected to my own sporting background. I began coaching in triathlon through a collaboration with a close friend, an Austrian triathlete who competed at the 2024 Olympic Games.
• That project marked a significant step in my development as a coach. I have always felt that if I truly want to challenge myself and continue advancing, triathlon is the most demanding environment in which to do so.
• From a coaching perspective, it is inherently more complex than working exclusively with cyclists or runners, as it requires the integration and optimization of three distinct disciplines. This complexity has driven me to deepen my knowledge and refine my coaching practices.
• For the past four years, I have been working with Team Jayco Alula as both a sports scientist and coach. In parallel, I serve as an endurance training scientist for Cycling Australia. These dual roles allow me to bridge applied coaching practice with scientific performance support at a high-performance level.
• Reflecting on how my perspective has evolved since 2021, I recognize that at that time I had just completed my research and was operating in a largely academic capacity.
• I was also working in the under-23 cycling development space, particularly within the Austrian system, where I had the opportunity to coach athletes who have since progressed to the WorldTour level and achieved notable success.
• One of the most insightful long-term projects I was involved in was guiding an athlete’s transition from biathlon into professional cycling. That process was extremely educational and significantly shaped my understanding of athlete development, although it was not the only meaningful example during that period.
• As I have matured as a coach, navigating both successes and setbacks, I have become more aware of the limits of my knowledge. The coaching journey is rarely linear; it involves more challenges than triumphs. This reality has made me more humble and considerably more reflective in my approach to best practice.
• Over time, I have come to value simplicity to a much greater degree. While it may sound like a cliché, I firmly believe that consistently executing the fundamentals at a very high standard is one of the most powerful principles in performance development.
• Mastering the basics and doing them exceptionally well remains, in my view, a cornerstone of effective coaching.

Something that Peter stopped doing from 2022

04:08 -

• Coming from a sports science background and having spent significant time in laboratory environments, I have always appreciated testing. However, over time, I have substantially reduced the amount of formal testing I conduct.
• I began to recognize that many of the laboratory results did not consistently explain the performance improvements or decrements observed in the field. This disconnect led me to reconsider the value of frequent testing within a high-performance environment.
• Today, particularly with athletes I know well, I conduct very little formal testing. Instead, I rely more heavily on structured training sessions and the systematic collection of contextual information to build a clearer and more complete performance picture. I am no longer a strong advocate of routine testing for its own sake.
• Working with elite athletes reinforces this perspective. The time available to meaningfully influence training and preparation is extremely limited due to demanding racing schedules and the overall demands of professional sport.
• Even in short-distance triathlon, where racing frequency may be lower than in professional cycling, preparation time remains scarce and must be allocated with precision. Every training opportunity must be used strategically.
• In this context, testing rarely provides additional value unless there is a very specific performance question that needs to be addressed. For example, in triathlon, there may be a justified need to assess efficiency or substrate utilization under controlled conditions.
• In professional cycling, if an athlete underperforms, it is necessary to conduct a structured evaluation process. However, such investigations are often medically guided and focused on health-related factors rather than purely performance diagnostics.
• Monitoring and assessment still have their place, particularly when implemented in a standardized and purposeful manner. However, in day-to-day coaching practice, I place greater emphasis on well-designed training programs and what I consider honest sessions: sessions that generate meaningful performance insight while simultaneously driving adaptation.
• In my view, these sessions offer greater practical value and higher quality outcomes than frequent formal testing.

Cadence training

07:06 -

• My interest in this topic originated from working in track cycling with the Australian team, particularly within the team pursuit program. In that environment, questions around gear optimization became central.
• I was confronted with practical performance questions such as which gear ratios allowed athletes to produce the highest sustainable power, which cadences they could effectively operate at, and ultimately what the true limiting factors were in their performances.
• This became even more relevant when working with track sprinters, where understanding the torque/cadence relationship and the cadence/power relationship is fundamental.
• These relationships are critical for interpreting the mechanistic determinants of performance. I began questioning why certain athletes could only operate effectively within specific cadence ranges. That curiosity led me to approach the topic from a research perspective.
• We designed a series of tests. First, we assessed maximum cadence and maximum torque through sprint protocols. Then, we implemented gear-restricted maximal efforts, where athletes were required to perform repeated maximum efforts under fixed gearing constraints. This allowed us to isolate specific mechanical demands.
• What we observed was that during short-duration exercise, typically under two minutes, performance was largely peripherally limited. The limitation was primarily muscular; the muscle could no longer sustain the required force production.
• In this context, the athlete was effectively torque-limited. However, once exercise entered the so-called severe intensity domain, where VO₂max can theoretically be attained—the limitation shifted. It became more centrally mediated rather than purely peripheral. Athletes appeared to regulate torque load by adjusting cadence, attempting to maintain a relatively stable torque demand while modulating cadence as fatigue developed.
• As part of a broader research project, we conducted extensive field-based critical power testing. We compared fresh versus fatigued power profiles and analyzed cadence behavior across conditions. Interestingly, torque demand remained relatively stable between fresh and fatigued states. What changed more noticeably was cadence.
• As fatigue accumulated, cadence declined earlier and more substantially. This led to an important observation: fatigue appears to accumulate through crank revolutions rather than solely through instantaneous torque load.
• When I refer to fatiguing through crank turns, I mean that with each additional pedal revolution during a maximal sprint, fatigue accumulates progressively. Every crank revolution carries a specific torque, power, and energetic demand.
• Over time, this repeated demand contributes to performance decline. This concept is well established in sprint cycling, but it also applies to submaximal exercise. Each crank turn represents a discrete mechanical and metabolic event, and the cumulative effect of these events drives fatigue.
• From an efficiency standpoint, it has long been demonstrated that lower cadences, such as 60 rpm, are associated with lower oxygen uptake for a given submaximal workload compared to 90 or 100 rpm.
• However, the mechanical trade-off is that for a given power output, lower cadence necessitates higher torque, because power is mathematically the product of torque and cadence. Reducing cadence increases the force requirement per pedal stroke.
• From a coaching perspective, understanding these dual streams: the force-based torque demand and the velocity-based cadence demand: allows for more precise training prescription.
• By manipulating cadence and torque intentionally, it becomes possible to target specific performance qualities and optimize power production relative to the demands of the event. This realization significantly influenced how I design training. It allowed me to introduce more purposeful variation and better align mechanical demands with the specific adaptations required for performance.

Implications for racing

11:44 -

• When discussing cadence, I consider three key terms to be central to the topic. The first is maximum cadence, referred to as Cmax.
• This can be assessed through a maximal sprint or by using a spin bike with virtually no resistance, where the athlete pedals as fast as possible for approximately six seconds. The highest cadence achieved during that effort represents Cmax.
• Cmax is primarily dictated by muscle fiber typology. Track sprinters can reach values of 270 to 280 rpm, BMX riders may exceed 300 rpm, track endurance athletes typically fall between 230 and 250 rpm, road sprinters are often around 220 to 230 rpm, and endurance-oriented road cyclists or triathletes are generally in the range of 160 to 180 rpm.
• These differences are largely related to fiber recruitment characteristics and are difficult to modify substantially through training. In this sense, Cmax can serve as an indirect indicator of whether an athlete’s profile leans more toward fast-twitch or slow-twitch dominance.
• The second key term is optimum cadence. If, for example, an athlete has a Cmax of 200 rpm, their optimum cadence for maximal sprint peak power would be approximately 100 rpm, which corresponds to 50 percent of Cmax.
• At this point, the torque–cadence relationship is balanced in such a way that peak power output is maximized. From a mechanical perspective, this corresponds to the peak of the parabolic power–cadence relationship. This concept originates largely from sprint cycling research and practice.
• If I shift to lower cadences than this optimum point, torque demand increases and the training stimulus becomes more force-oriented. If I move toward higher cadences, closer to Cmax, the stimulus becomes more velocity- or frequency-oriented.
• Understanding where a session sits along this torque–cadence spectrum allows me to manipulate training adaptations more precisely.
• The third concept is preferred cadence. This is particularly relevant for road cyclists and triathletes who spend most of their time training outdoors. If cadence variability is not intentionally trained, an athlete’s preferred cadence typically becomes a narrow range.
• When athletes are pushed outside this habitual range, either above or below it, power production often declines rapidly because they are not accustomed to producing power at those cadences.
• This is commonly observed during laboratory testing, where a sudden change in cadence leads to an immediate drop in power output due to the torque–cadence relationship.
• The practical implication of our findings was that power delivery should be developed across a broader cadence range. By deliberately incorporating both lower rpm work and higher rpm work, I can expand the athlete’s effective cadence spectrum and improve their ability to produce power under varying mechanical constraints.
• This has clear application in racing situations. In the classics, for example, riders may need to accelerate out of corners or respond on gradients where they cannot maintain their preferred cadence.
• In those moments, the ability to produce power outside a narrow cadence band becomes decisive. The same principle applies in road cycling and triathlon, where terrain, positioning, and tactical dynamics frequently force cadence deviations.
• For me, the key takeaway is that cadence capacity is trainable. There must be awareness that performance is not confined to a single preferred cadence, and that expanding this range can provide a tangible competitive advantage.

Cadence for longer events

18:10 -

• The lower the power demand and the more steady-state the effort, the less influential cadence becomes. This is clearly observable in road cycling. When athletes are riding steadily within the bunch at relatively low power outputs, they often select lower cadences because there is no incentive to increase turnover and incur unnecessary energetic cost.
• In those situations, cadence selection is largely economical. However, as soon as load increases and torque demand rises, athletes begin to optimize gearing and cadence through shifting or subtle adjustments in their preferred cadence in order to manage torque more effectively.
• The relevance of cadence becomes more pronounced around threshold intensity or above, where mechanical and metabolic demands are significantly higher.
• In Ironman racing, athletes typically operate around LT1, which represents a comparatively low power demand relative to threshold. From a purely cycling perspective, cadence may not appear to be a decisive factor in this steady-state context.
• However, triathlon introduces an additional constraint: the need to run effectively off the bike. For that reason, a practical recommendation is to prioritize efficiency in the early portion of the ride, but toward the latter stages, especially in the final 10 kilometers, to gradually increase cadence by approximately 5 to 10 rpm.
• This is less about a direct physiological mechanism and more about preparing the neuromuscular system for the upcoming run. If an athlete rides at 75 to 80 rpm for nearly four hours and then suddenly transitions to running, the shift in turnover can feel abrupt.
• Slightly elevating cadence before T2 can serve as a transitional cue to promote leg turnover and readiness for running.
• I do not believe that riding at a slightly lower cadence in a steady-state Ironman effort inherently has a negative impact on the run. The torque demand at those power levels is relatively modest, and it is unlikely that torque accumulation alone creates a meaningful detrimental effect.
• Rather, the cadence adjustment near the end of the bike leg functions as a practical and psychological preparation strategy. It introduces a higher turnover rhythm before dismounting, helping the athlete transition more smoothly into the run.
• This concept may be even more relevant in short-distance triathlon, where repeated accelerations out of corners and U-turns resemble criterium-style racing in road cycling. In those scenarios, the ability to manage cadence and torque dynamically becomes more performance-critical.
• For Ironman racing, the optimal cadence strategy ultimately depends on the athlete’s overall profile and the balance between their cycling and running capabilities.

Increasing cadence range

21:25 -

• I often refer to the work of Jim Martin, professor at the University of Utah, who has significantly influenced my thinking in this area. His background in force–velocity based sports and track cycling has shaped much of the discussion around what he describes as work loops.
• The central idea is that fatigue accumulates through crank revolutions because of the repeated requirement to activate and deactivate motor units. Each pedal stroke represents a cycle of activation and relaxation, and the frequency of that cycle changes substantially with cadence.
• At 60 rpm, which corresponds to 1 Hz, there is sufficient time for motor unit deactivation between contractions. At 90 rpm, or 1.5 Hz, and especially at 120 rpm, or 2 Hz, the time available for deactivation decreases.
• As cadence increases, the frequency of contraction rises and the window for relaxation becomes shorter. At lower cadences, torque demand is proportionally higher because power is maintained through greater force per stroke.
• At higher cadences, torque demand decreases, but contraction frequency increases and the neuromuscular system operates under a velocity-dominant constraint. These represent two distinct mechanical and neuromuscular stressors: one primarily force-restricted, the other primarily velocity-restricted.
• When athletes are exposed to these extremes, the sensation is markedly different even at identical power outputs. For example, producing 400 watts at 60 rpm feels fundamentally different from producing 400 watts at 120 rpm.
• Athletes often think in terms of power alone, but the internal load and neuromuscular demand differ considerably depending on how that power is generated. This discomfort is precisely what makes the stimulus valuable.
• I believe this type of cadence-focused work is most appropriate within a structured preparation block. If an athlete has a dedicated three-week period without racing interruptions, that is an ideal window to introduce these variations.
• In contrast, during periods between races, it can represent excessive stimulation. In those phases, maintaining specificity and freshness is generally more important than introducing additional neuromuscular complexity.
• Within a well-designed preparation block, however, integrating this work can be highly beneficial. It is particularly valuable for time trial performance, especially when performed in an aerodynamic position.
• Remaining in the bars while executing force-oriented efforts places specific demands on glute and hamstring activation. The objective is to develop what has been described as seated torque, meaning the ability to produce substantial force while remaining fully seated and stable in the aerodynamic position.
• Through repeated application of this approach, I have observed that even when athletes do not achieve their highest absolute power numbers in these sessions, the transfer to more specific time trial workouts is significant.
• The base work builds a mechanical foundation that later translates into improved power production under race-specific conditions. For that reason, I consider this type of cadence manipulation to be a targeted tool best used deliberately within defined preparation phases rather than as a constant weekly feature throughout the season.

High torque intervals

29:17 -

• When I reduce cadence with the intention of increasing torque demand, the objective is to shift the stimulus toward the force component of power production. In endurance contexts, this is often loosely referred to as strength work, although from a pure strength-training perspective the term is not entirely accurate.
• In practical coaching language, however, it serves as a useful cue. The true aim is to emphasize torque production rather than maximal strength in the traditional sense.
• If I apply cadence variation around LT1, the primary benefit is variation itself. At that intensity, the physiological impact is relatively modest. One relevant aspect is gross efficiency.
• Lower cadences are associated with lower oxygen uptake at a given submaximal workload, which can make them attractive in certain steady-state contexts.
• This has clear application in triathlon and in rolling stages of a Grand Tour, where riders may deliberately choose 75 to 80 rpm to avoid unnecessary oxygen cost from excessive turnover. In that context, lower cadence can be strategically useful.
• The more compelling application of torque-focused work occurs at intensities around FTP or critical power and above, in the upper heavy and severe domains.
• This is where the interaction between peripheral and central fatigue becomes most relevant. In this intensity range, emphasizing low cadence efforts can meaningfully stress the peripheral system and potentially enhance fatigue resistance, including adaptations related to type II fiber recruitment and durability.
• When prescribing this type of work, I generally limit the duration of individual efforts to approximately two to five minutes. Extending efforts beyond that range often forces a reduction in power output, which diminishes the intended torque stimulus. The training effect is best achieved when power remains sufficiently high to maintain the mechanical demand.
• Progression and individualization are critical. If an athlete has little prior exposure to torque-focused training and is immediately exposed to high torque loads at high power outputs, the risk of overuse issues increases. Rapid increases in torque demand can lead to knee discomfort, hamstring tightness, or other musculoskeletal complaints.
• For that reason, I carefully monitor torque loading, either by considering Newton meters relative to body mass or by analyzing the relationship between power and cadence over time. The key is to progress torque demand gradually across weeks, allowing the athlete to adapt safely to the new mechanical stimulus.
• In my view, this approach requires careful calibration. When introduced progressively and with appropriate intensity control, it can be highly effective.
• When implemented too aggressively, it can create unnecessary risk. As with most interventions, the success lies in matching the stimulus to the athlete’s experience level and preparation phase.

Training individualization

32:50 -

• If I am honest, the answer depends on the phase of preparation. Early in the season, particularly when athletes return from the off-season and begin accumulating volume again, there is limited need for high specificity.
• At that stage, the primary objective is to reintroduce training load, rebuild durability, and maintain health. There may be broad distinctions between rider types, for example sprinters incorporating more acceleration and high-torque work, or climbers spending more time on sustained climbing efforts.
• However, I do not believe that this period requires extreme individualization. The focus is on restoring general fitness and progressively increasing training volume in a safe and structured manner.
• As the season progresses and I move into more specific preparation and pre-competition phases, individualization becomes significantly more important. Athletes begin to reveal clear strengths and weaknesses. Some struggle with long sustained power demands, others with short explosive efforts.
• Some have difficulty with repeated spiked efforts, others require additional focus on time trial performance. At that point, a uniform approach is no longer appropriate. Especially in narrow windows between races, where perhaps only ten days are available to prepare for the next event, session selection must be highly precise.
• There is limited margin for error, and training must directly address the demands the athlete is about to face. In my view, preparation evolves from generalized conditioning toward increasing levels of specificity and individual tailoring as competition approaches.
• When discussing load individualization, I find it useful to distinguish between external and internal load. External load in racing is fixed. A stage race may be 100 kilometers, 4,000 meters of climbing, five consecutive days. That does not change from rider to rider.
• What differs is how each athlete absorbs and tolerates that load. This internal response is multifactorial. Nutritional strategy before, during, and after competition plays a major role in how well load is digested.
• Even at the professional level, where systems are well developed, there are considerable differences between riders in their capacity to absorb load while maintaining performance.
• Chronic training exposure is another decisive factor. Tolerance to load develops over time. Younger athletes entering the WorldTour sometimes appear to adapt quickly, perhaps reflecting increasingly aggressive junior and under-23 racing calendars.
• However, the time required to build true durability cannot be bypassed entirely. The race demands are fixed, but the pathway to tolerating them varies.
• If progression is too rapid, the athlete fails to respond positively. If progression is too conservative, they may lack the robustness required for competition. Balancing this progression is central to coaching.

Individualization needs for amateur triathletes

37:58 -

• Recovery is fundamental. In my view, it is the single most decisive factor, not only for age group athletes but across all performance levels. Today, most athletes are willing to train hard.
• The differentiation rarely lies in who is prepared to complete demanding sessions. The real difference emerges in how effectively athletes recover from those demanding days.
• Some of this variability can be explained by physiological training adaptations, but not all of it. There are instances where two athletes complete similar work under comparable conditions, yet one responds more favorably than the other without a clearly identifiable reason.
• This remains one of the ongoing challenges in performance science. However, when I look for the most practical and impactful lever, optimizing recovery consistently stands out.
• Recovery is inherently multifactorial. Sleep is a central component. Nutritional strategy, both in daily practice and around key sessions, is equally critical. Yet recovery also extends beyond physiology.
• The psychological and social environment plays a significant role. An athlete may execute sleep and nutrition protocols perfectly, but if they are not emotionally settled, if they are disconnected from family or friends, or if there are tensions within their team environment, recovery quality can be compromised.
• That psychological strain can translate directly into reduced training adaptation and diminished performance stability.
• For that reason, I do not view recovery as a single intervention or strategy. It is a broad management process that encompasses physical, nutritional, and psychosocial domains.
• When those elements are aligned, the probability of consistent adaptation increases substantially. When one of them is neglected, performance becomes more fragile. In my experience, managing recovery comprehensively is one of the most important aspects of sustaining high-level performance.

Race specificity

39:54 -

• One of the biggest misconceptions is the idea that training must directly replicate race scenarios. This assumption overlooks the complexity of racing, particularly in sports like road cycling and triathlon. In road cycling, race dynamics are influenced by terrain, tactics, team strategy, and positioning.
• In triathlon, the variability is even greater. There are three disciplines, different course profiles on the bike, varying run demands, and diverse swim environments such as lakes or open sea. These variables make it impossible to reduce racing to a single standardized template and then conclude that training should simply mirror that template.
• What is essential instead is understanding the performance determinants of the sport. I need to know the required swim times, bike outputs, run splits, and the general speed or power benchmarks that define competitiveness at the highest level.
• Tracking trends and knowing where the athlete currently stands relative to those benchmarks provides the framework for session design.
• For example, if I work with an Olympic distance triathlete who has a strong swim-bike profile but struggles on the run, I must understand what it takes to become a top 15 or top 10 runner at World Triathlon level. That requires analyzing the typical run performances of top athletes across a season.
• From there, I can define the performance gap and design sessions that gradually move the athlete toward that target. However, this does not mean that every session should replicate race pace. Training must still respect fundamental principles of load management, recovery, and intensity distribution.
• Experience plays a significant role in how I approach this process. Earlier in my coaching career, I tended to pursue multiple objectives simultaneously. Over time, I have shifted toward a more structured block-based approach. I now think more clearly in terms of emphasis blocks, whether within a microcycle or a broader mesocycle.
• For instance, I may structure a period with an endurance emphasis, a speed emphasis, a strength emphasis, or a threshold and power emphasis. This does not mean that every session within that block targets the same quality, but the overall focus of the week or phase is clearly defined.
• Within such a structure, recovery remains non-negotiable. Even in a strength-emphasis week, not every session across all disciplines can be strength-focused. If there are three sessions in a day, perhaps two can carry the primary emphasis while one must remain easy to facilitate recovery.
• By clustering training objectives in this way, I can direct adaptation more effectively while still respecting the athlete’s capacity to absorb the load.
• For me, this balance between understanding race demands, identifying performance gaps, and organizing training in clearly defined emphasis blocks is central to sustainable progression.
• I agree with that perspective. In amateur Ironman training, there is often a strong focus on maximizing limited time and attempting to replicate race demands as closely as possible. However, mimicking race intensity or duration is not always the most effective strategy. A clearer understanding of the fundamental performance determinants is usually more valuable.
• If the goal is to run a three-hour marathon off the bike, that capacity is strongly influenced by standalone 10K and half marathon ability. If an athlete struggles to break 40 minutes for an open 10K, then the limitation is unlikely to be a lack of extremely long, race-specific sessions.
• The constraint is more likely rooted in underlying speed, threshold, and aerobic capacity. In that case, developing those foundational qualities may yield greater returns than repeatedly simulating Ironman race pace.
• Establishing a robust aerobic base, improving threshold performance, and increasing consistent running mileage often create the largest shift in marathon performance.
• Once those core capacities are in place, translating them into Ironman-specific execution becomes more straightforward. Without that foundation, specificity alone cannot compensate for physiological limitations.
• From my perspective, specificity should be layered on top of a strong base, not used as a substitute for it.
• Especially in time-constrained amateur contexts, investing in the key determinants of performance may produce more meaningful and sustainable progress than focusing narrowly on race mimicry.

Specificity needs for different races

45:56 -

• From a general preparation perspective, the training between short-distance and long-distance triathletes is often remarkably similar. A practical example comes from athletes I work with who train alongside German middle- and long-distance professionals.
• During general preparation, their programs are largely aligned. They complete most sessions together because they benefit from the shared workload and the training environment. The differences at that stage are minimal.
• As preparation becomes more specific, divergence naturally occurs. They may still attend the same training camp and complete many sessions together, but emphasis begins to shift. The short-distance athlete will prioritize higher-quality, faster runs, while the long-distance athlete will incorporate longer runs.
• The structure remains broadly similar, but one or two key sessions per week become discipline- and distance-specific. One athlete extends duration, the other increases intensity. The distinction reflects the demands of their target events rather than a fundamentally different training philosophy.
• In reality, the majority of endurance training is not complex. Roughly ninety percent is based on well-established principles of aerobic development, volume accumulation, and progressive loading. The remaining ten percent represents the additional specificity required for the event.
• Ultimately, both formats are endurance sports. Interestingly, the total training volume of elite short-distance athletes is not dramatically lower than that of Ironman athletes. The main difference lies in intensity distribution. Short-distance athletes perform a higher proportion of high-intensity work relative to long-distance specialists.
• This intensity profile partly explains why transitions from short-distance to middle-distance racing have become increasingly common and often successful. For a well-developed short-distance athlete, middle-distance racing can feel like an extended endurance effort.
• Transitioning to Ironman introduces additional challenges, particularly in nutrition and prolonged durability, and not all short-distance athletes adapt equally well. However, in recent years, the frequency of successful transitions has clearly increased.

Transition from short to long distance triathlon

49:07 -

• I would not recommend that a short-distance triathlete, whose primary focus remains short-distance racing, suddenly attempts a full Ironman without a structured transition.
• There are isolated examples of athletes doing so successfully, but in my view that approach stretches the system too far. A more reasonable progression is for a short-distance athlete, given sufficient preparation time, to target a half Ironman.
• With a timeframe of approximately four to six weeks, meaningful adjustments can be made without compromising long-term development.
• In that scenario, the shift is relatively straightforward. It involves spending more time on the time trial bike, introducing longer sustained efforts in the range of 10 to 20 minutes, and incorporating a longer run of approximately 20 to 25 kilometers.
• I generally do not prescribe single runs longer than 25 kilometers for half-distance preparation. The key is to balance these specific endurance-oriented sessions with consistent high-quality training across all disciplines.

Progression

50:25 -

• Regarding progression more broadly, the starting point is understanding the athlete’s training history. I need to know what they have been exposed to and avoid making abrupt increases in load.
• In non-weight-bearing sports such as swimming and cycling, progression errors may be less immediately visible. In running, however, progression must be handled with particular care due to the mechanical impact forces involved.
• Research published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine on large cohorts of amateur runners suggests that increasing weekly running mileage by more than 10 percent substantially elevates injury risk.
• For example, if an athlete averages 60 kilometers per week, progressing by more than 6 kilometers the following week increases injury probability significantly. That proportional increase scales with higher volumes. While conservative, I have found this principle highly practical when planning running progression.
• Equally important is how recovery weeks are managed. If an athlete averages 60 kilometers per week, reducing volume dramatically to 20 kilometers during a deload week can be counterproductive. The return to chronic volume becomes more difficult.
• Instead, I prefer to maintain a meaningful base, perhaps reducing to 40 kilometers while lowering intensity. This maintains continuity and reduces the physiological shock of large fluctuations. In my experience, consistency within a manageable range produces greater long-term stability than aggressive oscillations in load.
• Some hybrid athletes with substantial speed reserves respond poorly to excessive mileage increases. I have observed sprint-distance triathletes running exceptional 5K and 10K performances on 60 to 70 kilometers per week, with no need to increase further. For them, that range represents an optimal balance.
• Others require higher chronic volume and may operate effectively at 80, 90, or even 100 kilometers per week. There are extreme cases exceeding 120 kilometers, but in triathlon this must be considered in the context of total training load, including 25 to 30 kilometers of swimming and 400 to 500 kilometers of cycling per week. The cumulative stress across three disciplines is often underestimated.
• Progression, therefore, is not linear or uniform. It depends on the athlete’s physiological profile, training history, and tolerance to combined load. The objective is not to maximize volume indiscriminately, but to identify the range within which the athlete can consistently adapt while maintaining health and performance stability.
• When working with amateur athletes, I do not view progression in the same way I would with professionals. In many cases, progression is not about continually increasing load or intensity. It is primarily about consistency.
• If an amateur athlete can reliably run three times per week, swim two to three times, and ride two to three times, that already represents a strong structural foundation.
• Maintaining that pattern consistently, week after week, is often more valuable than adding additional sessions. Increasing frequency further, such as introducing a fourth or fifth run, is rarely necessary unless the athlete is in a dedicated training camp environment with fewer external constraints.
• What can progress are specific key sessions rather than the entire weekly structure. For example, the long run can gradually increase. An athlete might begin with 15 kilometers, progress to 20, and, depending on whether they are targeting half-distance or long-course racing, eventually extend to 30 or 35 kilometers for their longest effort.
• That type of specific session progression makes sense. However, the overall weekly framework should remain relatively stable, particularly because amateur athletes must balance work, family, and other commitments. Excessive structural changes can compromise recovery, which, as discussed earlier, is central to adaptation.
• Regarding intensity, I believe it should remain part of the program. However, the purpose is not to continually increase intensity toward a maximum threshold. Instead, intensity provides variation and a different physiological stimulus.
• It also ensures that the athlete maintains some exposure to higher-end capacities. For long-distance-focused amateurs, I do not support an aggressive emphasis on VO2max work.
• There is certainly a place for it, but overemphasizing VO2max training in athletes targeting long-course events rarely produces optimal outcomes in my experience. The intensity should complement the overall endurance objective rather than dominate it.

VO2 max session for long distance triathletes

57:16 -

• Some athletes introduce high-intensity interval training too early in the season. If an athlete begins structured VO2max sessions in January but is not competing in their first Ironman until June, that represents a very long exposure to high-intensity work. In that context, a more clustered approach is more appropriate.
• Rather than maintaining high-intensity work continuously week after week, I prefer to organize it in blocks. For example, I may include a dedicated VO2-focused block or a short sequence of higher-intensity sessions, then return to more threshold-oriented work and aerobic stability. Later in the preparation, I may reintroduce another high-intensity block. This rotation might occur two or three times before the target race.

Evaluate how an athlete is responding to training

58:11 -

• I evaluate training response from two perspectives. First, I look at objective data. I analyze power output, heart rate, and session files through platforms such as TrainingPeaks. I also consider the athlete’s perceived exertion and qualitative feedback.
• When introducing a new training stimulus, I believe it is important not to abandon it prematurely if the first session does not go well. Both coach and athlete must allow time for adaptation. At the same time, I remain critical. If, after a reasonable period, the intervention does not produce the intended effect, I am prepared to adjust or remove it.
• Equally important is open communication. I regularly discuss with the athlete how they experience the sessions and how they perceive their progression.
• We are working with individuals, not data sets. Even if the numbers look strong, if the athlete consistently dislikes a session and gains no positive reinforcement from it, that must be considered. Enjoyment and psychological engagement are not trivial; they influence long-term adherence and performance stability.
• However, evaluating a single session in isolation is insufficient. It must be interpreted within the broader training context. An athlete may execute sessions exceptionally well over several weeks, hitting all targets and reporting good sensations, yet underperform in competition.
• This is a common scenario in long-distance athletes who repeatedly push sessions to maximal levels. They may produce impressive training data while gradually compromising efficiency and durability required for sustained race efforts. In that case, the issue is not the session itself, but how it fits within the overall structure and load distribution.
• For that reason, I assess response in relation to the total program. Some sessions may not be enjoyable, yet they create positive adaptations that become evident in subsequent workouts or race performance. In such cases, they retain value despite subjective resistance.

Other metrics to evaluate training

1:01:08 -

• I find metrics such as the efficiency factor informative, but they must be interpreted carefully. It is never a perfectly linear trend. If I step back and examine the broader progression from the off-season into specific preparation, I would generally expect to see heart rate decrease relative to power output as fitness improves.
• That pattern can indicate improved aerobic efficiency. However, context is critical. During periods of functional overreaching, such as a demanding training camp, parasympathetic activity can alter heart rate responses. In those situations, the heart rate–power relationship may appear distorted, and interpreting it without context can lead to incorrect conclusions.
• There are numerous additional monitoring tools available, but in practice I prioritize what is sustainable and acceptable to the athlete. Monitoring must fit into daily routines.
• For example, I have personally tracked my resting physiology for many years, including early use of Marco Altini’s monitoring applications when they were first developed. I find value in that data. However, not all athletes share that interest. Some dislike tracking resting heart rate or heart rate variability. Even if I believe the data may be useful, I will not impose it if the athlete perceives no benefit.
• Conversely, there are athletes who enjoy engaging with data. They appreciate reviewing sleep metrics, physiological markers, and detailed training statistics. If that engagement positively influences their habits and day-to-day decision-making, I support it.
• The key is finding an appropriate balance. Monitoring should enhance the training process, not create unnecessary burden. I do not believe in forcing a strategy simply because it is theoretically valuable. Its usefulness ultimately depends on how it integrates into the athlete’s routine and mindset.

Checking what is wrong with an athlete

1:03:08 -

• There are situations where I have had to step back and acknowledge that I may not be the right coach for a particular athlete. If the methodology, communication style, or general approach does not align, it can become increasingly difficult to create meaningful progression.
• I believe it is fair, in certain circumstances, to say openly that the partnership may not be the best fit. Differences in personality or training philosophy can make collaboration challenging. In those cases, recommending that the athlete explore another coaching relationship can ultimately serve their ambitions better. It also protects both parties from prolonged frustration.
• That said, this is never the first response to short-term difficulties. If an athlete experiences one or two weeks of poor sensations or inconsistent performance, my immediate focus is on understanding the underlying cause.
• I prioritize listening carefully to the athlete and maintaining open dialogue. Many athletes are perceptive and capable of offering valuable feedback about how sessions feel and what adjustments might improve the experience.
• Being receptive to that input is important. I am prepared to adjust sessions, test modifications, or incorporate their suggestions when appropriate.
• Open communication is central to sustaining a productive coach–athlete relationship.
• When both sides are willing to listen and adapt, most challenges can be resolved without escalating to more drastic decisions. Only when persistent misalignment remains despite these efforts do I consider whether the partnership itself is the limiting factor.

Three different potential reasons for not responding

1:05:53 -

• When I reflect on successful athlete development, I often realize that there is less variation in training than one might expect. At times I look back at a strong race performance and ask myself why the athlete performed so well.
• Frequently, the answer is simple: we were consistent. We maintained four or five key sessions that the athlete responded well to, and we repeated them with minor adjustments. There was not an excessive amount of novelty.
• Of course, small variations can be introduced. I may add cadence work or subtle modifications to stimulus. However, the overall structure remains relatively stable.
• There are established blocks of aerobic work, threshold and over-under sessions, and quality Zone 2 or tempo sessions. These form the core of the program. The emphasis may shift, but the fundamental components are consistent.
• The ability to stratify and refine these elements for each individual athlete develops over time. The longer the coach–athlete relationship continues, the clearer it becomes what works and what does not. With years of collaboration, I can build a well-defined training package tailored to that athlete’s response patterns.
• When I begin working with a new athlete, the process is more exploratory. The first several months often involve testing different emphases and observing how the athlete responds, both objectively and subjectively. I make it clear that this phase is exploratory by design.
• Through careful tracking of session data and feedback, I gradually construct a personalized framework. Over time, this becomes a refined and reliable system for that athlete, allowing performance improvements to be built on consistency rather than constant reinvention.

Best practices likely not be the same 5-10 years from now

1:07:58 -

• Altitude training has long been established in endurance sport, yet it remains a demanding intervention. It carries significant financial and logistical burdens, particularly for athletes who must relocate for several weeks to implement it effectively.
• For time-constrained or budget-limited athletes, this raises an important question about necessity. With the growing body of research on heat training and its physiological effects, it is reasonable to ask whether altitude exposure is always required, or whether certain adaptations can be achieved through alternative methods.
• Heat training has gained momentum in recent years, partly because it has been investigated more rigorously. While the concept itself is not new, the improved quality of research has renewed interest.
• Similar patterns have occurred in other areas, such as the recent focus on durability in cycling and running. These waves of attention often reshape how we think about training, although they rarely overturn foundational principles.
• At present, heat training may appear to be at a peak of attention. If managed carefully, it can be a powerful tool. However, it is demanding, both physically and mentally.
• Sustained blocks of passive or active heat exposure can lead to fatigue accumulation and, if mismanaged, plateau or stagnation. In that respect, it shares similarities with altitude exposure: both require careful planning and dosage.
• In endurance coaching, trends frequently cycle through phases of prominence. High-intensity training models, polarized versus pyramidal distribution debates, and now heat versus altitude are examples.
• Coaches with decades of experience have seen these cycles emerge, fade, and reappear under new terminology. For that reason, I remain cautious about labeling any single method as definitive. No intervention functions as a universal solution.
• In my view, the future of endurance coaching lies not in replacing one stimulus with another, but in integrating multiple stimuli appropriately. Heat, altitude, intensity manipulation, and durability-focused work all have potential value.
• The key is balance, individualization, and context. Training evolves, but the core objective remains consistent: to apply the right stimulus at the right time for the right athlete.
• At the highest level of performance, most elite coaches are not dramatically altering their frameworks based on social media discourse. The debate around Zone 2 training is a good example. Much of the recent attention has been driven by the health and fitness sector rather than high-performance sport.
• Influencers may discuss it extensively, but within elite environments it has not represented a radical shift. Aerobic base development has always been foundational in endurance training. The terminology may fluctuate, but the principle itself is not new.
• The distinction lies in context. At the professional level, training decisions are grounded in accumulated experience, data interpretation, and established physiological principles.
• In contrast, certain topics gain disproportionate visibility through social media, where strong opinions are often expressed without equivalent depth of understanding. This can create the impression of a paradigm shift when, in reality, best practice has remained relatively stable.
• From a high-performance perspective, it is important to remain anchored in evidence and long-term experience rather than reacting to trends. The presence of highly confident voices without substantial expertise is not new, but the amplification through digital platforms has increased their visibility.

AI in endurance coaching

1:13:14 -

• I see influence as the correct term. I do not believe artificial intelligence will replace coaching, because the personal relationship between coach and athlete remains fundamental. The human component, the trust, the interpretation of nuance, and the shared journey cannot be replicated by an algorithm. That relational aspect is central to performance development.
• However, I do see significant potential for AI as a technological support tool. As coaches, we accumulate vast amounts of data. Being able to query that data efficiently would improve workflow considerably.
• For example, if I could simply request an overview of the training intensity distribution from the past six to eight weeks with a specific focus on the run, and receive that analysis immediately without manually exporting files, building charts, or writing code, it would streamline decision-making. The value lies in accelerating the analytical process rather than replacing judgment.
• I would prefer AI to function as an intelligent assistant that helps interpret literature, summarize research findings, or distill key insights from long-form content such as podcasts.
• In that role, it becomes a research and synthesis tool. Of course, any recommendations generated must still be critically evaluated. Fact-checking and contextual understanding remain essential. AI should inform decisions, not dictate them.
• In that sense, I see its primary role as improving efficiency and expanding access to structured information. If it enables coaches to spend less time on mechanical data processing and more time on thoughtful planning and athlete interaction, then it has meaningful value.

Two things athletes can implement to improve performance

1:15:27 -

• Beyond physiology, data, and methodology, I believe one of the most important elements in endurance sport is clarity of purpose. Athletes and coaches alike must understand why they are dedicating so much time and energy to this pursuit.
• The question is not always about metrics or performance outcomes. It is about meaning. Finding genuine enjoyment in the process and maintaining a clear vision of what one is striving for is fundamental to long-term sustainability.
• It is easy to become absorbed in the daily demands of training, performance targets, and logistical pressures. Over time, both athletes and coaches can find themselves in a space of uncertainty, questioning whether the workload is sustainable or whether the direction still aligns with their values and ambitions.
• High-performance sport is demanding for everyone involved. It requires emotional investment, time, and continuous decision-making.
• We have seen even highly respected and experienced coaches step away from roles when creativity and quality no longer felt present.
• That underscores the importance of support structures within the coach–athlete environment. A healthy system should allow for growth, reflection, and balance rather than constant strain.

LINKS AND RESOURCES

• Peter’s ResearchGate
• Power profiling, critical power, and U23 cycling research with Peter Leo | EP#319 - Peter’s previous appearance on That Triathlon Show (January 2022)
• Rethinking Endurance Training: Insights from Peter Leo - Peter’s appearance on Joel Filliol’s podcast