REF-788 · Sanders & van Erp, 2021 · International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, Vol. · Paper · PubMed

The Physical Demands and Power Profile of Professional Men's Cycling Races: An Updated Review

B+moderate evidenceMeasured on elite to world-class athletesWritten before October 2026, being re-checked

An updated review of the intensity, load and power-profile measures used to describe professional men's cycling races. Stage type significantly shapes the demand: more elevation gain means higher intensity and load and higher long-duration (over 10 min) power, while flat and semi-mountainous stages show higher maximal mean power over short durations (under 2 min).

Single-day races tend to carry a higher daily intensity and load than stages within multiday races. Little research describes the race-winning efforts themselves, and the authors advise reading races with several metrics rather than one.

Participants

Not applicable — narrative review of race-data studies in professional men. The number of studies reviewed is not given in the abstract.

Protocol

Scope as stated in the abstract: typically adopted intensity, load and performance measures (including the "power profile") are introduced and their results in professional men's races summarised, by stage type and race format.

Key Results

Stage type drives the demand: more elevation gain → higher intensity and load and higher longer-duration power outputs (>10 min).
Flat and semi-mountainous stages: higher maximal mean power outputs over shorter durations (<2 min).
Single-day races: tend to have a higher (daily) intensity and load than stages within multiday races.
Gap: limited research describes the "race-winning efforts"; the authors propose it as an important area for future research.
Method: each metric has limitations; a multivariable approach to analysing races is advocated.
The abstract reports no numerical values.

Practical Application

This review of professional men's race data finds that the course decides the demand: climbing races ask for more intensity, more load and more power over efforts longer than 10 min, while flat and rolling races are decided by higher power over efforts shorter than 2 min; one-day races are harder per day than stages of a stage race. Read the course before you plan the block — a hilly road race and a flat one ask for different power durations.
Judge a race file by several measures together (intensity, load and the power profile), not by one number.
The review cannot tell you what wins: the authors say the race-winning efforts are barely described, so do not quote a "winning" number from it.
Inference, not tested here: for amateur road racing and criteriums the same logic — flat and technical courses weight short efforts — is transfer from professional men and should be said as such.
Not from this paper; the base's own practice: the finale of a bunch sprint is quantified in REF-791; fatigued power, rather than fresh power, is covered by REF-192 and REF-789.

Limitations

Narrative review; the abstract describes no search strategy or inclusion criteria.
Professional men only; nothing here on women or amateurs.
Mean grouped data — they do not describe individual race-winning efforts.
No numbers in the abstract, so no magnitudes can be quoted from this entry.
Written from the abstract and record metadata only (full text not read).
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

authoritative narrative review updating the older race-demand reviews; the abstract gives no numbers, so the level covers direction, not magnitudes