European Journal of Sport Science

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tejs20

Utility of the W´BAL model in training programme

design for masters cyclists

Miguel Ángel Galán-Rioja, Fernando González-Mohíno, Philip Friere Skiba &

José María González-Ravé

To cite this article: Miguel Ángel Galán-Rioja, Fernando González-Mohíno, Philip Friere
Skiba & José María González-Ravé (2023) Utility of the W´BAL model in training programme
design for masters cyclists, European Journal of Sport Science, 23:7, 1259-1268, DOI:
10.1080/17461391.2022.2142675

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2022.2142675

Published online: 09 Nov 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 272

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tejs20
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SPORT SCIENCE
2023, VOL. 23, NO. 7, 1259–1268
https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2022.2142675

ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION

Utility of the W´BAL model in training programme design for masters cyclists
a a,b
Miguel Ángel Galán-Rioja , Fernando González-Mohíno , Philip Friere Skibac and José María González-
Ravé a
a
Sport Training Lab, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo, Spain; bFacultad de Ciencias de la Vida y de la Naturaleza, Universidad Nebrija,
Madrid, Spain; cDepartment of Sports Medicine, Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, IL, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The present study aims to determine the utility of integrating balance model (W´BAL-INT) in Road cycling; optimizing
designing interval training programmes as assessed by improvements in power output, critical performance; power output;
power (CP), and W prime (W´) defined as the finite work capacity above CP. Fourteen male W´ balance; V̇ O2 kinetics;
time trial
cyclists (age = 42 ± 7 yr, body mass = 69.6 ± 6.5 kg, height = 175 ± 5 cm, CP = 302 ± 32 W, relative
CP = 4.35 ± 0.66 W·kg−1) were randomized into two training groups: Short-Medium-Long
intervals (SML-INT; n = 7) or Long intervals (L-INT, n = 7) [training sessions separated by 72 h],
along with 3–4 sessions of moderate intensity training per week, for 4 weeks. All sessions were
designed to result in the complete depletion of the W´ as gauged by the W´BAL-INT. CP and W´
were assessed using the specified efforts (i.e. 12, 7 and 3 min) and calculated with the 2-
parameter CP linear model. Training loads between the groups were compared using different
metrics. CP improved in both the SML-INT and L-INT groups by 5 ± 4% and 6 ± 5% (p < 0.001)
respectively, without significant changes in W´. Mean maximal power over 3, 7 and 12 min
increased significantly in the SML-INT group by 5%, 4% and 9%, (p < 0.05) without significant
changes in the L-INT group. There were no differences between groups in training zone
distribution or training load using BikeScore and relative intensity, but there was significantly (p
< 0.05) higher TRIMPS for the Long-INT group. Therefore, W´BAL model may prove to be a useful
tool for coaches to construct SML-INT training programmes.

Highlights
. CP significantly improved with both training models during the present intervention and in
power output in some of the time to exhaustion (TTE) trials, despite a difference in training
load between the groups as assessed by TRIMPS.
. We recommend designing endurance training sessions based on the use of the W´BAL-INT
model.
. The structured interval model can be an easy and standardized way for cyclists and coaches to
monitor their potential for flat and mid-mountain stages.

Introduction
The CP model describes the hyperbolic relationship
between power output and the time for which may be
sustained, and has been well-described in both labora-
tory and field research (Jones & Vanhatalo, 2017).
Power output variability is common in road cycling,
with frequent hard efforts interspersed with recovery
periods of differing duration (Shearman et al., 2016).
Typical training and racing in road cycling are character-
ized by multiple high-intensity surges above CP (i.e. in
the severe or extreme exercise intensity domains)
which result in the depletion of the work capacity
above critical power (W´). The W´ is reconstituted
when the power falls below CP (i.e. into the moderate
or heavy exercise intensity domains) (Skiba and Clarke
2021). Complete depletion of the W´ results in task
failure, or “volitional fatigue” (Jones et al. 2010).
Previous studies have described the physical
demands and exercise intensity domain distribution
(e.g. moderate, heavy, severe or extreme) of different
stage types in competitive road cyclists: flat terrain (5–
30 s efforts), semi-mountainous terrain (30 s–2 min
efforts in multiday stages and 30 s–10 min efforts in
typical decisive segments), mountain terrain (>10 min
efforts), and time trial (TT) (>10 min efforts) (Sanders &
Heijboer, 2019). For example, world class cyclists prepar-
ing for the Giro d’Italia adopted a pyramidal intensity
distribution with an increase in high-intensity volume
and polarization index in race weeks (Gallo et al.,
2022). In addition, a positive effect of training on

CONTACT Fernando González-Mohíno fernando.gmayoralas@uclm.es Sport Training Lab, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Castilla-La Mancha,
Avenida Carlos III s/n, Toledo 45071, Spain; Facultad de Ciencias de la Vida y de la Naturaleza, Universidad Nebrija, Madrid, Spain
© 2022 European College of Sport Science
1260 M. A. GALÁN-RIOJA ET AL.
power output suggests that a certain degree of respon-
siveness to training persists in professional cyclists (Gallo
et al., 2023). However, questions remain with respect to
optimal training regimes. Rosenblat, Perrotta and
Thomas (Rosenblat et al., 2020) found that TT perform-
ance was favoured by long intermittent training (L-INT)
(≥4 min) over sprint interval training (SIT). Other
studies have found improvements in TT performance
and maximal aerobic power (MAP) with the use of
efforts between 1-5 min compared to short efforts
(30 s) (Sylta et al., 2017). Bossi et al. (2020) found that
well-trained cyclists sustained higher fractions of
maximal oxygen uptake (V̇ O2max) when work intervals
involved power-output variations. There exists the possi-
bility that interval bouts with variations in intensity and
duration may generate a larger training stimulus than
sessions comprised strictly of longer intervals, as
shown by Wen et al. (2019) with works of different
types of Short-intervals (≤30 s), low-volume (≤5 min)
and short-term (≤4 weeks), being effective and time-
efficient strategies for developing V̇ O2max.
Given that road cycling is characterized by accelera-
tions, changes in road profile, drafting and other
factors such as environmental conditions and racing
strategies, cyclists are required to generate high absol-
ute and relative power outputs resulting in different
levels of fatigue (Sanders & Heijboer, 2019). One way
of assessing both the physiology and fatigue state of
cyclists is through the measurement of the depletion
and recovery of W´. In this paradigm, a “work-balance”
model (W′ BAL) is employed, where W′ is expended
when power output exceeds CP and reconstituted
when power output falls below CP (Shearman et al.,
2016). The W´BAL model has been demonstrated to accu-
rately model W´ kinetics and predict exhaustion in
cycling (Skiba et al., 2012, 2014), and correlate with phys-
iological measures such as oxygen uptake (V̇ O2) and
phosphocreatine concentration (PCr) in single-leg exten-
sor cycling exercise (Skiba et al., 2015). In fact, Skiba et al.
(2014) observed significant improvements in CP after
using the integral form of the W´BAL model (W´BAL-INT)
to construct sessions that resulted in the complete
depletion of the W´. In this sense, Chorley et al., (2020),
observed how the rate of W′ reconstitution, and in par-
ticular the reduction in W′ reconstitution that occurred
with repeated bouts of severe-intensity exercise, corre-
lated with parameters of aerobic fitness, such as CP
and V̇ O2max. This suggests the possibility that the W
´BAL model can be used to help ensure that athletes par-
ticipating in high-intensity interval training experience a
similar training effect when integrating different types of
interval training (De Pauw et al., 2013; Skiba et al., 2012,
2014). Indeed, one of the present authors (PS) has used
the W´BAL-INT model to optimize training sessions for
amateur and elite athletes for several years (Skiba &
Clarke, 2021). The model is now in widespread use as
it is available on certain GPS devices and several soft-
ware platforms. Despite this, there has been no formal
evaluation of the utility of the W´BAL-INT model in
session construction in the practical training of athletes.
The primary purpose of this study was to ascertain
whether the W´BAL-INT model can be used to design
different types of interval training programmes, and
whether these programmes would differ in their
impact on CP and W´ over a given 4-week training
block. A secondary purpose of this study was to
compare the training loads of these different training
blocks as assessed by more traditional power (BikeScore)
or heart-rate based (TRIMPS) metrics.
Methods
Thirty cyclists were initially recruited, however, due to
the state of confinement during the coronavirus pan-
demic (COVID-19), fourteen well-trained male cyclists
(age = 42 ± 7 yr, body mass = 69.6 ± 6.5 kg, height =
175 ± 5 cm, CP = 302 ± 32 W, relative CP 4.35 ± 0.66
W·kg−1) completed this study. The participants had no
injury or illness during the three months before to the
study. All participants trained 5.5 ± 0.5 times per week,
for a total of 13.0 ± 1.6 h per week and had participated
in road cycling for at least three years. The participants
were classified as well-trained cyclists following the cri-
teria of De Pauw, Roelands, Cheung, De Geus, Rietjens
and Meeusen (De Pauw et al., 2013), and classified as
Tier 3 (national level) according to the classification fra-
mework of McKay et al. (2022). The study was approved
by the local University ethics committee (UNNE-2020-
010). All participants gave their written, informed
consent to participate in the study, which was com-
pleted according to the declaration of Helsinki.
A pre–post design was used in this study (Figure 1). In
a randomized fashion, 14 male cyclists were assigned to
a 4-week training programme that consisted of either to
implement varied durations of intermittent training
(short, medium and long intervals durations) (Exper-
imental Group, SML-INT) (n = 7) or long intermittent
training (Control Group, L-INT) (n = 7). All interval ses-
sions (SML-INT) were designed to completely deplete
the W´ as assessed by the using the W´BAL-INT model
(below). In the first two weeks, participants were famil-
iarized with the training methods, and field tested to
determine CP and W′ (Karsten et al., 2015) in the area
where usually trained. The participants were instructed
to perform only one high-intensity intermittent session
during each familiarization week, along with a CP field

Figure 1. An overview of the experimental design (upper). Training protocol for intervals short, medium, and long intermittent train-
ing (SML-INT) experimental group: Training protocol for intervals long intermittent training (L-INT) control group. Abbreviation: R,
Randomization participants and groups; wk, week; Pre-test, field pre-test; Post-test, field post-test.
test (familiarization). In addition, they were also per-
mitted to participate in freely chosen (ad libitum) moder-
ate intensity training (MIT) sessions. In the second week,
one high-intensity intermittent session and a CP pre-test
was performed. The following 4-wk period consisted of
the training intervention, in which all participants per-
formed two sessions of intermittent training, plus three
sessions of MIT per week, with the high intensity ses-
sions separated by 72 h, and they were not allowed to
train outside of the prescribed programme. During the
last week of the training intervention, an intervention
session and the CP post-test were conducted within
72 h of training completion.
The participants were instructed to avoid strenuous
exercise 24 h before each testing session and to
abstain from caffeine and alcohol on the day of
testing. To achieve a high level of ecological validity,
environmental conditions were not standardized, and
no instructions were given for the choice of road,
slope, or position on the bicycle, except for the CP pre-
test and post-test. It was advised to the cyclists that
the road, position, and equipment must be the same.
The cyclists were instructed to conduct a familiarization
CP field test during the first week which was not
included in the data (Karsten et al., 2015).
To determine CP and W’, a single field-based test was
used (Karsten et al., 2015). Cyclists were instructed to
perform a maximum effort of 12 min, followed by a
maximum effort of 7 min, followed by a final effort of
3 min. The cyclists were instructed to take a 30 min
recovery period between each maximal effort, which
consisted of low-intensity riding. They were instructed
to undertake the field test when fully rested. Calculation
of CP and W′ using the specified efforts (i.e. 12, 7 and
3 min) were calculated with the 2-parameter CP linear
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SPORT SCIENCE 1261
model (1/time) (Karsten et al., 2015). Files were imported
into Golden Cheetah training software version 3.6-
DEV2005 (http://www.goldencheetah.org) for proces-
sing and data extraction and the maximal efforts were
extracted to calculate CP and W′ .
The W´BAL-INT loads were modelled from the intermit-
tent training sessions based on the meta-analysis of
Rosenblat, Perrotta and Thomas (Gallo et al., 2022).
Work-bouts of 2 min or less were categorized as short
intervals, while work bouts lasting between 2 and
4 min were categorized as medium intervals. Work
bouts longer than 4 min duration were classified as
long intervals. Training intensities were individualized
using exercise intensity domains and training zones
developed on the basis of CP (Clarke & Skiba, 2013):
Moderate [Zone 1 (z1) < 56% CP, z2 (56-75% CP)],
Heavy [z3 (76-90% CP), z4 (91-105% CP)], Severe [z5
(106-120% CP)] and Extreme [z6 (>120% CP)].
The intervention period consisted of 2 high-intensity
intermittent training sessions, plus three sessions of MIT
per week during 4-wk, except for the last week with one
high-intensity intermittent training session for both the
L-INT and SML-INT groups (Figure 1). The cyclists were
instructed one by one to take a 20 min of low-moderate
intensity (warm-up), followed by 4 × 16 min (z3-z4), sep-
arated by 2 min recovery period at low-moderate inten-
sity between each repetition for the L-INT group (Sylta
et al., 2017), while the SML-INT group performed three
sets (i.e. each set, 30 s [z6], 1 min [z6], 3 min [z5], 7 min
[z5] interspersed by 30 s, 1, 3 and 4 min of active recov-
ery at low-moderate intensity respectively) in order to
reconstitute W’ (Figure 1). Each set lasted 20 and
60 min (i.e. three sets) for the entire intermittent training
session. The W´BAL-INT model was used to design a com-
bination of intervals that would result in the complete
1262 M. A. GALÁN-RIOJA ET AL.
Figure 2. The integrating W´ balance reconstitution model (W´BAL-INT) for a cyclist participating in the intermittent intervals short,
medium and long intermittent training (SML-INT) experimental group.
depletion of the W´ (i.e. Figure 2) in the SML-INT group,
for this, the cyclists were instructed to perform each of
the intervals at the highest possible speed followed by
active recovery. Finally, all training sessions were fol-
lowed by a 10–30 min low-moderate intensity period
as a cool-down.
The W´BAL-INT model was calculated according to the
method of (Bossi et al., 2020; Skiba et al., 2014; Skiba
et al., 2015) However, the original model is better
stated as a convolution integral (Skiba & Clarke, 2021).

t
W BAL−INT (t) = Wo − [e(−(t−u)/tW′ ) ] W ′EXP (u) du
′ ′
0 the mean, and then the 4th root. This methodology is
where

0, P(u) ≤ CP
W ′EXP (u) = (
P(u) − CP)du, P(u) . CP
and
tW ′ = 546 · e(−0.01·Dcp) + 316
Training load was quantified using a variety of different
methods. First, training intensity distribution was
assessed following total power time and heart rate
time and total W’BAL time (Skiba et al., 2012). In addition,
BikeScore, relative intensity (RI) (Clarke & Skiba, 2013)
and TRIMPS (Banister, 1991) were calculated using
Golden Cheetah in order to compare total load during
each SML-INT and L-INT session. Briefly, BikeScore is cal-
culated according to the formula:
BikeScore = ((t∗(XP)∗RI)/(CP∗3600s))∗100
where t = time in minutes and XP is a power value
treated to account for the variability and intensity of
power metre data. Variability is addressed by applying
a 25 s exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA)
to the power file, in order to account for the time
course of physiological responses. Intensity is addressed
by raising the smoothed values to the 4th power, taking
mathematically analogous to the training stress score
(TSS) methodology in wide use in amateur and pro-
fessional cycling (Allen et al., 2019). The relative intensity
(RI) is the ratio of the session XP divided by the session
average power (AP). The BikeScore calculation arbitrarily
sets 1 h at CP equal to 100 points for the sake of parsi-
mony with other training load metrics (e.g. Training
Stress Score (TSS)) which set 100 points equal to 1 h at
the (more nebulous) “Functional Threshold Power”
(FTP) (Allen et al., 2019).
All cyclists used their own bikes. Power-output data
were collected using different power-metre brands
owned by each of the cyclists, which were calibrated
according to the manufacturer’s instruction: PowerTap
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SPORT SCIENCE 1263

(CycleOps, Madisson, USA), PowerTap P1 (CycleOps,

Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation. CP, critical power; W´, finite work capacity above critical power; MMP, maximal mean power; HR, heart rate; RPE, rate of perceived exertion; sRPE, Session rating of perceived
0.002
0.000
0.005
0.001

0.001
0.005
0.001
0.007
0.019
0.006
η²
Madisson, USA) and Garmin Vector 2 pedals (Garmin

ANOVA
Table 1. Field test results during 4-weeks of modelling intermittent intervals short, medium, and long high-intensity training (SML-INT) and long-high-intensity training (L-INT).
International Inc., Olathe, KS, USA), each of them has

0.27
0.87
0.17
0.34

0.34
0.38
0.47
0.14
0.48
0.28
been previously validated (Bertucci et al., 2005; Nimmer-

p
ichter et al., 2017; Pallarés & Lillo-Bevia, 2018). The train-
ing power data files were uploaded to Golden Cheetah.

Effect size
Data were analyzed using the SPSS statistics package

0.19
0.62
0.47
3.55

0.85
0.86
0.00
0.10
0.30
0.14
24 (IBM SPSS statistics, SPSS., Chicago, United States) for
Windows. The preliminary analysis (Shapiro–wilk)
showed that our data did not deviate from a normal dis-

<.001***
tribution for any of the considered variables. Thereafter,

0.63
0.78
1.00
0.30
0.28
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.98
a 2 × 2 repeated measures ANOVA were employed, with
the test period (two levels: pre-test and post-test) as a
within-participants factor, and group (two levels: SML-

−1
1
24
2
3
5
6

0
0
0
%
Changes
INT and L-INT) as a between-participants factor.

L-INT (n = 7)
Mauchly’s test was consulted and if sphericity was vio-

0.06
2.96

−2
Dif
lated, Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied. A

6
17

9
18

0
0
0
Tukey post-hoc test was used to evaluate between
group differences in changes. In addition, an indepen-

4.45 ± 0.60
15.29 ± 4.84
325 ± 35
336 ± 38
392 ± 49
319 ± 38

169 ± 8
185 ± 6
9±1
7±2
dent-samples t-test was used to evaluate between

Post
groups changes in training load quantification and to
assess the possible differences between groups at the

exertion; Effect Size, 0.2 small: 0.5 Medium: 0.8 Large. * Significantly different (p ≤ 0.05); *** Significantly different (p < 0.01).
initial values of the training programme. A P-value

4.39 ± 0.66
12.33 ± 4.63
of ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The

319 ± 38
327 ± 41
374 ± 51
302 ± 35

171 ± 7
185 ± 5
9±1
7±2
Pre
magnitude of changes between groups was also
expressed as effect size (ES) (Cohen, 1988). ES values
between 0.2 and 0.49 indicated a small effect, between
0.5 and 0.79 indicated a moderate effect and 0.8 and
Effect size

0.54
0.70
1.15
1.19
1.47
0.09
2.95

0.66
0.75
0.71
above indicate a large effect. The magnitude of
changes in the repeated measures ANOVA was
expressed as effect size (ES) through eta-squared (η²).
Values of 0.01, 0.06 and above 0.15 were considered as
<.001***

0.049*
0.019*

small, medium and large, respectively (Cohen, 1988).

0.05*
p

0.19
0.54

1.00
0.65
0.43
0.52

Results
−2
4
30
5
4
9
0
5

0
20
%
SML-INT (n = 7)
Changes

Results of the analysed variables before and after train-

ing are presented in Table 1. No significant differences
0.16
3.35

−3
Dif

15
13
31
14

0
1

between groups were found at the beginning of the

training programme in the variables analysed.
After four weeks of training, the Tukey post-hoc
4.46 ± 0.57
14.44 ± 6.00
331 ± 26
346 ± 24
389 ± 48
159. ± 10
172 ± 10
316 ± 30

9±1
6±2
Post

analysis revealed an increase in CP of 5% (p < 0.001;

ES = 2.95) and 6% (p < 0.001; ES = 3.55) for SML-INT
and L-INT groups, respectively. Mean maximal power
(MMP) for 12, 7 and 3 min increased significantly in the
4.30 ± 0.66
11.09 ± 3.58
316 ± 30
333 ± 31
358 ± 35
302 ± 30

SML-INT group by 5% (p < 0.05, ES = 1.15), 4% (p <

159 ± 8
175 ± 8
9±1
5±1
Pre

0.05, ES = 1.19) and 9%, (p < 0.05, ES = 1.47) respectively,

with no differences in the L-INT group (medium-to-large
ES). CP relative to body mass and W′ remained
unchanged in both groups after the training
MMP 12min (W)

MMP 3 min (W)

MMP 7min (W)

HRmax (bpm)
CP (W·kg−1)

HRCP (bpm)

sRPE (0-10)

programme.
RPE (0-10)
CP (W)

W´ (kj)

There were no differences between groups in the

training intensity distribution (TID) relative to time
1264 M. A. GALÁN-RIOJA ET AL.

spent in power zone (z1 = 52 and 47%, z2 = 25 and 24%,

152 ± 7.5
120 ± 4.7
76 ± 2.4

27 ± 1.2
68 ± 3.9
72 ± 3.8
TWD (kj)

90 ± 10
z3 = 11 and 15%, z4 = 7 and 10%, z5 = 7 and 10% and z6
= 2 and 1%, for SML-INT and L-INT groups, respectively),
relative to heart rate (z1 = 27 and 23%, z2 = 41 and 34%,
z3 = 18 and 24%, z4 = 13 and 18%, z5 = 1 and 1% and z6

22 ± 7.5
17.1 ± 4.7
10.9 ± 2.4

4.5 ± 1.2
10 ± 3.9
12 ± 3.8
15 ± 10
W´(kj)
7 min
= 0 and 0%, for SML-INT and L-INT groups, respectively)
and relative to total W´ balance fatigue time (Recovered
= 94 and 96%, moderate fatigue = 4 and 3%, elevated
fatigue = 1 and 1%, and severe fatigue = 1 and 0%, for

MMP (W)
290 ± 11

275 ± 27

316 ± 13
310 ± 16
304 ± 8

348 ± 3

284 ± 5
SML-INT and L-INT groups, respectively). In addition,
there were no differences between groups in the
quantification of training load using BikeScore and RI
(101.42 ± 24.05 and 110.30 ± 22.18 a.u., and 0.64 ± 0.05

total work capacity above CP during interval.

93 ± 4.1
104 ± 1.2
43 ± 1.9

25 ± 1.8
48 ± 3.8
TWD (kj)
and 0.62 ± 0.04%, for SML-INT and L-INT groups, respect-

51 ± 5

56 ± 2
ively). However, when training load was quantified using
TRIMPS, there were significant differences (p < 0.05)
between groups (158.07 ± 37.61 a.u. vs. 217.83 ± 46.38

13 ± 4.1
14.9 ± 1.2
6.19 ± 1.9

4.2 ± 1.8
7 ± 3.8
a.u., for SML-INT and L-INT groups, respectively). The

W´(kj)

8.5 ± 5

9±2
3 min
cyclists approached maximal values of perceived exer-
tion RPE (9 ± 1 and 9 ± 1, for SML-INT and L-INT
groups, respectively) and sRPE (6 ± 1 and 7 ± 2, for
SML-INT and L-INT groups, respectively).

MMP (W)
327 ± 20
335 ± 12
289 ± 22

338 ± 14
334 ± 20
360 ± 6

311 ± 5
A summary of expending for both groups in training
sessions is reported. W´, total work capacity above CP

as mean ± SD. MMP, maximal mean power; W′ , curvature constant (work capacity above CP); TWD,
during interval (TWD) and MMP from all the intervals
were averaged and are reported in Tables 2 and 3.

TWD (kj)
43 ± 0.9
43 ± 1.1
40 ± 2.1

25 ± 1.6
42 ± 2.3
32 ± 0.5
43 ± 2
Discussion
Table 2. Summary of expending W´ during the seven training sessions of SML-INT.

6 ± 0.9
6.1 ± 1.1
5.7 ± 2.1

4.2 ± 1.6
6 ± 2.3
5 ± 0.5
W´(kj)
1 min

This is the first intervention study to use an intermittent 7.2 ± 2

CP model to prospectively plan cycling training in the
field. The major finding of our study is the similar
improvement in CP observed between SML-INT and L-
MMP (W)
379 ± 34
362 ± 18
351 ± 23
404 ± 20
387 ± 13
394 ± 15
347 ± 6

INT groups.
Due to the frequent changes in power during the
cycling competitions (Sanders & Heijboer, 2019), the
W’BAL-INT model may be a useful tool for the integration
TWD (kj)
49 ± 0.8
39 ± 1.4
38 ± 1.6

41 ± 2.6
26 ± 0.5

of short, medium and long efforts in different exercise

45 ± 1
21 ± 1

intensity domains (moderate, heavy and severe) in a

given training session. This is in line with the study
reported by Dolci et al. (2020) who concluded that a
7 ± 0.8
5.6 ± 1.4
5.4 ± 1.6

6 ± 2.6
4 ± 0.5
W´(kj)

7.5 ± 1
3.5 ± 1

short and intense period of high-intensity intermittent

30 s

training is likely to induce significant physiological adap-

tations in parameters of endurance performance, such as
V̇ O2max and the first lactate threshold (LT), which may
MMP (W)
488 ± 28
441 ± 48
457 ± 60
561 ± 22
441 ± 32
506 ± 88
406 ± 19

not otherwise occur with regular training. The improve-

ments in CP after 4 weeks of high-intensity intermittent
Data are presented

training with a complete depletion of the W´ is in agree-

ment with the previous work reported by Skiba et al.
Participants

(2014). This is somewhat surprising given that our par-

ticipants were well-trained competitive cyclists, and
those in Skiba et al. (2014) were only recreationally
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SPORT SCIENCE 1265

active. This suggests that complete depletion of W´ is a

TWD (kj)
47 ± 3.1
46 ± 4.9
31 ± 1.4
37 ± 2.1

38 ± 1.9
51 ± 2.3
25 ± 2
potent training stimulus.
The standard error for W’ varied between 0.29 and
1.24 kJ for both groups. There exists the possibility
that the (non-significant) increases in W´ observed

7.8 ± 3.1
9.2 ± 4.9
4.4 ± 1.4
6.1 ± 2.1

6 ± 3.2
5.8 ± 3.1
W´(kj)
16 min

5±2
could be the result of the sample size, and such
changes might be reconsidered in future studies.
There is a common coaching perception that SML-
INT training protocols similar to those developed
MMP (W)

225 ± 20

247 ± 15
225 ± 8
259 ± 4

278 ± 9
242 ± 8
281 ± 6
here could increase the W’, possibly owing to the con-
tinual discharge and reconstitution of W’ during the
prescribed sessions. However, it is more common to
find an inverse relationship between changes in CP
TWD (kj)
45 ± 1.8
44 ± 4.3
34 ± 1.8
28 ± 1.6
19 ± 1.3
36 ± 1.9
46 ± 1.8
Data are presented as mean ± SD. MMP, maximal mean power; W′ , curvature constant (work capacity above CP); TWD, total work capacity above CP during interval.
and W’ with training interventions utilizing training in
the severe domain (Hill et al., 2002; Jenkins &
Quigley, 1993) have demonstrated that an intermittent
protocol comprised of 5 × 1 min sprints at maximal
7.5 ± 1.8
8.8 ± 4.3
4.9 ± 1.8
4.7 ± 1.6
3.8 ± 1.3
5.2 ± 0.9
5 ± 2.2
W´(kj)
16 min

effort separated by 5 min of passive recovery resulted

in improvements in the magnitude of the W’.
However, it is likely the power output was in the
extreme domain (Hill et al., 2002). On the other
MMP (W)

243 ± 5.4
229 ± 17
273 ± 10

hand, there were significant differences in the MMP

225 ± 5
253 ± 4

237 ± 6
280 ± 9

of 3, 7 and 12 min in the SML-INT group but not for

the L-INT group. That could be due to a more variabil-
ity of response in the cyclists using long interval efforts
TWD (kj)
45 ± 1.8

24 ± 1.3
35 ± 2.2
27 ± 2.1
40 ± 1.2
47 ± 1.4

and a lower percentage of change in this group (poss-

34 ± 6

ibly due to a lack of depletion of W’ in the L-INT

group). In addition, although there was a slightly
non-significant increase in relative CP, the lack of sig-
7.5 ± 1.8
6.8 ± 2.6
3.4 ± 1.3
5.9 ± 2.2
5.4 ± 2.1
6.2 ± 0.8

nificant differences could be due to a more variability

W´(kj)
16 min

4.9 ± 2
Table 3. Summary of expending W´ during the seven training sessions of L-INT.

in the body weight loss during the training period.

There were non-significant changes in body weight
in both groups (around 0.5 kg of weight loss).
Chidnok et al. (2012) found that intermittent exer-
MMP (W)

238 ± 10
228 ± 6
254 ± 4

281 ± 7
243 ± 4
290 ± 7
245 ± 6

cise in the severe domain improved exercise tolerance

in proportion to the reconstitution of the W’. The
reconstitution of W’ is related to the intensity and dur-
ation of the recovery interval, as confirmed by Skiba
TWD (kj)
48 ± 1.3
17 ± 1.1
22 ± 0.4
41 ± 2.5
29 ± 2.2
45 ± 1.5
50 ± 0.8

et al. (2012) using the W´BAL-INT model. This may in

part be due to an increase of the oxidative phosphoryl-
ation and a reduction of the slow component of V̇ O2
(Skiba et al., 2012). Although we did not evaluate
8 ± 1.3
3.4 ± 1.1
3.1 ± 0.4
6.9 ± 2.5
5.8 ± 2.2
7 ± 2.8
5.2 ± 1.1
W´(kj)
16 min

these physiological variables in our study, the improve-

ments obtained in CP and W’ in a certain way may be
due to the improvement in exercise tolerance during
the intervention period using the W´BAL-INT model. Pre-
MMP (W)

260 ± 11

291 ± 10
230 ± 5

242 ± 9

244 ± 9
294 ± 8
250 ± 7

vious studies have shown that L-INT at different inten-

sities improves TT performance (Rosenblat et al., 2020).
In addition, Sylta et al. (2017) found an increase in peak
aerobic power output (PPO), power at intensity of
4 mmol of blood lactate and V̇ O2peak in the first 4
Participants

weeks of a L-INT (4 × 16 min) training intervention,

10
11
12
13
14

without changes in the subsequent 4 and 8 weeks.

8
9
1266 M. A. GALÁN-RIOJA ET AL.
Similar results were found in our study with improve-
ments in power output and in performance tests
despite not measuring blood lactate and V̇ O2, which
suggests that these variables may have improved in
our study. However, (Rønnestad et al., 2014) did not
find such changes following Long-HIIT (6 × 5 and 5 ×
6 min): maximal aerobic power (MAP), peak power
output (Wmax), V̇ O2max, and gross efficiency and
cycling economy were unaffected. Furthermore,
Rønnestad, Hansen, Nygaard and Lundby (Rønnestad
et al., 2020) compared the effects of 3 weeks with
three weekly sessions of S-INT vs. L-INT, observing
improvements in peak power output, fractional utiliz-
ation of V̇ O2max, power output at 4 mmol L−1 and
power output during a 20 min test in the L-INT inter-
vention, which supports the idea of the improvements
obtained in our study. As mentioned above, mixed
results are found about the use of short and long inter-
mittent training, most of them finding performance
improvements. However, Sylta et al. (2016) did not
find differences in improvement in 40 min TT mean
power output or peak power output when athletes
were moved from L-INT to shorter intervals or the
reverse, or simply prescribed the same intervals in a
mixed fashion. It may therefore be that the high-inten-
sity prescription is less important than the load pre-
scribed and the eventual depletion of the W´. Our
data may be viewed in a like manner. Despite
different interval session construction, there was no sig-
nificant difference between SML-INT and L-INT with
respect to total training load or distribution as assessed
by time in W´ zone, HR zone, power zone, BikeScore or
RI. This implies a similar training load between sessions,
and it is therefore not unexpected that there might be
a similar adaptive response as assessed by change in
CP. However, a significant difference in load was
noted between SML-INT and L-INT when calculated
on the basis of TRIMP (Banister, 1991). This has impor-
tant implications, as it suggests that TRIMP may be
more sensitive to the difference in interval length and
/ or intensity between the SML-INT and L-INT sessions,
in effect offering a higher point total for L-INT despite
L-INT not offering a greater eventual improvement in
CP. This illustrates the need for comparative studies:
the depletion of W´ could be a more important adap-
tive stimulus for CP than the total training load per
se. Caen et al. (2019) found that the rate of W´ recon-
stitution may be slower when the rate of W´ depletion
is slower as well. There exists the possibility that the
speed of depletion and reconstitution of W´ could be
an important factor in determining the efficacy of a
given interval programme. In addition, this could be
another factor to explain the lack of significant
differences in MMP for the L-INT group, compared to
the SLM-INT group using the W’BAL-INT model to
ensure depletion of W’.
Despite the apparent similarity of physiological
impact between the SML-INT and L-INT training
regimes, based on our results we recommend the pre-
scription of L-INT sessions for TT and climbing specialists
due to more constant-intensity efforts. We recommend
programing varied-intensity work intervals (SML-INT)
for flat and semi-mountainous stages in accordance
with the principle of specificity and physical demands
of different stage types in competitive road cyclists
(Sanders & Heijboer, 2019), since these types of stages
require a greater variety of power outputs.
Although this was the first intervention study to use
an intermittent CP model to prospectively plan cycling
training in the field, it is not without limitations. The
wide variety of bicycles made it impossible to use stan-
dardized mechanics, as well as a standardized protocol.
Furthermore, the participants did not follow a normal-
ized dietary pattern, which may also induce some
change in the results. Although our sample might be
larger, it is a good representation of well-trained cyclists
participating in male cycling competitions, however we
lacked to include a group of female cyclists, which could
have more potential for future studies to be more repre-
sentative. Therefore, in future studies it is worth consid-
ering a larger sample size, and the inclusion of women
and young cyclists.
Conclusion
The present study found that there were significant
improvements in CP with both SML-INT and L-INT
during the present 4-week intervention. These results
suggest that interval training programmes developed
using the W’BAL-INT model could be an effective alterna-
tive to conventional methods of training in cyclists.
This may be of interest to coaches and cyclists who
with optimize the physiological impact of intervals struc-
tured according to the physical demands of particular
cycling competitions. Further work should focus on the
elucidation of the differences between HR and power-
based training stress metrics.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
The authors reported that this research received no external
funding.
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SPORT SCIENCE 1267

ORCID to validity. Biology of Sport, 40(2), 485–495. https://doi.org/

10.5114/biolsport.2023.114284
Miguel Ángel Galán-Rioja http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0204- Gallo, G., Mateo-March, M., Gotti, D., Faelli, E., Ruggeri, P.,
3122 Codella, R., & Filipas, L. (2022 Jun 10). How do world class
Fernando González-Mohíno http://orcid.org/0000-0002- top 5 giro d’Italia finishers train? A qualitative multiple
6327-6958 case study. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in
José María González-Ravé http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5953- Sports, 00, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.14201
4742 Hill, D. W., Poole, D. C., & Smith, J. C. (2002). The relationship
between power and the time to achieve VO∼ 2∼ m∼ a∼
x. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 34(4), 709–714.
References Jenkins, D. G., & Quigley, B. M. (1993). The influence of high-
intensity exercise training on the wlim-tlim relationship.
Allen, H., Coggan, A. R., & McGregor, S. (2019). Training and
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 25(2), 275–282.
racing with a power meter. VeloPress.
Jones, A. M., & Vanhatalo, A. (2017). The ‘critical power’concept:
Banister, E. W. (1991). Modeling elite athletic performance.
Applications to sports performance with a focus on intermit-
Physiological Testing of Elite Athletes, 347, 403–422.
tent high-intensity exercise. Sports Medicine, 47(1), 65–78.
Bertucci, W., Duc, S., Villerius, V., Pernin, J. N., & Grappe, F.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0688-0
(2005). Validity and reliability of the PowerTap mobile
Jones, A. M., Vanhatalo, A., Burnley, M., Morton, R. H., & Poole,
cycling powermeter when compared with the SRM device.
D. C. (2010). Critical power: Implications for determination of
International Journal of Sports Medicine, 26(10), 868–873.
VO2max and exercise tolerance. Medicine & Science in Sports
https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2005-837463
& Exercise, 42(10), 1876–1890. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.
Bossi, A. H., Mesquida, C., Passfield, L., Rønnestad, B. R., &
0b013e3181d9cf7f
Hopker, J. G. (2020). Optimizing interval training through
Karsten, B., Jobson, S. A., Hopker, J., Stevens, L., & Beedie, C.
power-output variation within the work intervals.
(2015). Validity and reliability of critical power field testing.
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance,
European Journal of Applied Physiology, 115(1), 197–204.
15(7), 982–989. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2019-0260
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-014-3001-z
Caen, K., Bourgois, J. G., Bourgois, G., Vermeire, K., & Boone, J.
McKay, A. K. A., Stellingwerff, T., Smith, E. S., Martin, D. T.,
(2019). The reconstitution of W’Depends on both work
Mujika, I., Goosey-Tolfrey, V. L., Sheppard, J., & Burke, L. M.
and recovery characteristics. Medicine and Science in Sports
(2022). Defining training and performance caliber: A partici-
and Exercise, 51(8), 1745–1751. https://doi.org/10.1249/
pant classification framework. International Journal of Sports
MSS.0000000000001968
Physiology and Performance, 17(2), 317–331. https://doi.org/
Chidnok, W., Dimenna, F. J., Bailey, S. J., Vanhatalo, A., Morton,
10.1123/ijspp.2021-0451
R. H., Wilkerson, D. P., & Jones, A. W. (2012). Exercise toler-
Nimmerichter, A., Schnitzer, L., Prinz, B., Simon, D., & Wirth, K.
ance in intermittent cycling: Application of the critical
(2017). Validity and reliability of the garmin vector power
power concept. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 44
meter in laboratory and field cycling. International Journal
(5), 966–976. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.
of Sports Medicine, 38(6), 439–446. https://doi.org/10.1055/
0b013e31823ea28a
s-0043-101909
Chorley, A., Bott, R. P., Marwood, S., & Lamb, K. L. (2020).
Pallarés, J. G., & Lillo-Bevia, J. R. (2018). Validity and reliability of
Physiological and anthropometric determinants of critical
the PowerTap P1 pedals power meter. Journal of Sports
power, W′ and the reconstitution of W′ in trained and
Science & Medicine, 17(2), 305–311.
untrained male cyclists. European Journal of Applied
Rønnestad, B., Hansen, J., & Ellefsen, S. (2014). Block periodiza-
Physiology, 120(11), 2349–2359. https://doi.org/10.1007/
tion of high-intensity aerobic intervals provides superior
s00421-020-04459-6
training effects in trained cyclists. Scandinavian Journal of
Clarke, D. C., & Skiba, P. F. (2013). Rationale and resources for
Medicine & Science in Sports, 24(1), 34–42. https://doi.org/
teaching the mathematical modeling of athletic training
10.1111/j.1600-0838.2012.01485.x
and performance. Advances in Physiology Education, 37(2),
Rønnestad, B. R., Hansen, J., Nygaard, H., & Lundby, C. (2020).
134–52. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00078.2011
Superior performance improvements in elite cyclists follow-
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
ing short-interval vs effort-matched long-interval training.
sciences. Law-rence Erlbaum Associates Inc, Publishers.
Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 30(5),
De Pauw, K., Roelands, B., Cheung, S. S., De Geus, B., Rietjens, G.,
849–857. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.13627
& Meeusen, R. (2013). Guidelines to classify subject groups in
Rosenblat, M. A., Perrotta, A. S., & Thomas, S. G. (2020). Effect of
sport-science research. International Journal of Sports
high-intensity interval training versus sprint interval training
Physiology and Performance, 8(2), 111–122. https://doi.org/
on time-trial performance: A systematic review and meta-
10.1123/ijspp.8.2.111
analysis. Sports Medicine, 50(6), 1145–1161. https://doi.org/
Dolci, F., Kilding, A. E., Chivers, P., Piggott, B., & Hart, N. H.
10.1007/s40279-020-01264-1
(2020). High-intensity interval training shock microcycle for
Sanders, D., & Heijboer, M. (2019). Physical demands and power
enhancing sport performance: A brief review. Journal of
profile of different stage types within a cycling grand tour.
Strength and Conditioning Research, 34(4), 1188–1196.
European Journal of Sport Science, 19(6), 736–744. https://
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003499
doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2018.1554706
Gallo, G., Bosio, A., Martin, M., Morelli, A., Azzolini, M.,
Shearman, S., Dwyer, D., Skiba, P., & Townsend, N. (2016).
Guercilena, L., Larrazabal, J., & Rampinini, E. (2023).
Modeling intermittent cycling performance in hypoxia
Relationships between training dose and record power
using the critical power concept. Medicine and Science in
outputs in professional road cyclists: Insights and threats
1268 M. A. GALÁN-RIOJA ET AL.
Sports and Exercise, 48(3), 527–535. https://doi.org/10.1249/
MSS.0000000000000794
Skiba, P. F., Chidnok, W., Vanhatalo, A., & Jones, A. M. (2012).
Modeling the expenditure and reconstitution of work
capacity above critical power. Medicine and Science in
Sports and Exercise, 44(8), 1526–1532. https://doi.org/10.
1249/MSS.0b013e3182517a80
Skiba, P. F., & Clarke, D. C. (2021). The W′ balance model:
Mathematical and methodological considerations.
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance,
16(11), 1561–1572. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2021-0205
Skiba, P. F., Fulford, J., Clarke, D. C., Vanhatalo, A., & Jones, A. M.
(2015). Intramuscular determinants of the ability to recover
work capacity above critical power. European Journal of
Applied Physiology, 115(4), 703–713. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s00421-014-3050-3
Skiba, P. F., Jackman, S., Clarke, D., Vanhatalo, A., & Jones, A. M.
(2014). Effect of work and recovery durations on w’reconsti-
tution during intermittent exercise. Medicine and Science in
Sports and Exercise, 46(7), 1433–1440. https://doi.org/10.
1249/MSS.0000000000000226
Sylta, Ø, Tønnessen, E., Hammarström, D., et al. (2016). The
effect of different high-intensity periodization models on
endurance adaptations.
Sylta, Ø, Tønnessen, E., Sandbakk, Ø, et al. (2017). Effects of
high-intensity training on physiological and hormonal adap-
tions in well-trained cyclists.
Wen, D., Utesch, T., Wu, J., Robertson, S., Liu, J., Hu, G., & Chen,
H. (2019). Effects of different protocols of high for VO2max
improvements in adults: A meta- analysis of trials. Journal
of Science and Medicine in Sport, 22(8), 941–947. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2019.01.013