REF-1648 · Mateo-March et al., 2022 · International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, Vol. · Paper · PubMed

Professional women's record power profile: across 44 female professionals (32,028 training and racing files over 1-6 years), mean maximal power averaged 15.3 W/kg for 5 s, 8.4 for 1 min, 5.2 for 10 min and 4.2 for 60 min; sprinters led at 5-30 s and time trialists in W/kg at 10-60 min

Main caveat: 44 professionals; rider-type groups are smaller still and their sizes are not in the abstract.
limited evidenceMeasured on elite athletesRead from the abstract only

Mateo-March and colleagues set out to chart the record power profile of women professional cyclists and to see whether it differs by type of rider.

They analysed 32,028 power files from training and competition recorded by 44 professional women over 1-6 years, classed each rider as an all-rounder, time trialist, climber or sprinter, and took her mean maximal power (MMP) for efforts from 5 s to 60 min, both per kilogram and in watts.

Across the group, MMP averaged 15.3 (SD 1.8) W/kg for 5 s, 8.4 (0.8) for 1 min, 5.2 (0.5) for 10 min and 4.2 (0.4) for 60 min. For 5-30 s efforts sprinters had the highest values: higher per kilogram than all the other categories (Hedges g 1.40-2.31) and higher in watts than the climbers (g 4.48-8.06).

Time trialists had the highest values for longer efforts, with more W/kg than all-rounders and climbers for 10-60 min (P < .05, g 1.21-1.54). The authors conclude that the profile differs substantially by rider type and offer the values as a benchmark for coaches and scientists identifying talent in women's cycling.

Participants

n = 44 professional female cyclists, each with 1-6 years of power files.
Rider types: all-rounders, time trialists, climbers and sprinters; numbers per type and classification criteria not in the abstract.
Not in the abstract: age, body mass, team category and race results.

Protocol

Data: 32,028 power files containing training and competition sessions.
Record power profile: each rider's mean maximal power for durations from 5 s to 60 min, in W/kg and in W.
Comparison: rider types compared with Hedges g effect sizes.
Not in the abstract: absolute watts, values for durations other than those in the table, and whether best values were taken per season or over the whole period.

Key Results

DurationMean maximal power, W/kg, mean (SD), all 44 riders
5 s15.3 (1.8)
1 min8.4 (0.8)
10 min5.2 (0.5)
60 min4.2 (0.4)
Sprinters: highest MMP for 5-30 s; relative values above all other categories (g 1.40-2.31), absolute values above climbers (g 4.48-8.06).
Time trialists: highest MMP for longer efforts; relative values above all-rounders and climbers for 10-60 min (P < .05, g 1.21-1.54).
Values for each rider type and absolute watts are not in the abstract.

Practical Application

A professional-women yardstick: 15.3 W/kg for 5 s, 8.4 for 1 min, 5.2 for 10 min and 4.2 for 60 min, as group means of 44 professionals. Use it to show a female rider where her numbers sit against the top of the sport, not as a target for an amateur.
The profile differed by rider type: sprinters stood out at 5-30 s and time trialists in W/kg at 10-60 min. Inference, not tested here: reading a rider's strengths from the whole curve tells more than one number; how riders were classed is not in the abstract.
Inference, not tested here: these are best values over 1-6 years of training and racing, so a fair comparison is a rider's own best over a long window, not one ride; best power falls after hard work, and more so in professional women than men (REF-1240).
Not settled by this design / not from this paper: amateur benchmarks by category or age, the profile after accumulated work, absolute watts, and how the rider types were defined.

Limitations

44 professionals; rider-type groups are smaller still and their sizes are not in the abstract.
Best values from training and racing files, not a standard test; maximal efforts at each duration were not standardised (our reading).
Ages, body mass, team level and absolute watts are not in the abstract.
Professionals only; no amateur comparison.
Written from the abstract and the PubMed record; full text not read.
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

cross-sectional descriptive study of n = 44 (under the 100 that would make a measurement study B+); best values from everyday training and racing files rather than a set test; riders per type not in the abstract

Content correction 2026-11-07
2026-11-07: added from the abstract and the PubMed record; level B (cross-sectional descriptive analysis of power files, n = 44).