REF-790 · Barsumyan et al., 2025 · Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, Vol. 7, article · Paper · PubMed
Enhanced durability predicts success in amateur road cycling: evidence of power output declines
Fourteen endurance-trained age-group cyclists did 5- and 20-min time trials fresh and again after riding at 70%-80% of their fresh 20-min power until 1,000 kJ of work was done. Riders were split into more and less successful groups. The successful riders lost only about half as much 20-min power in the fatigued state (6.5% vs 12.5%); the 5-min power drop and the heart-rate response did not differ between groups.
Participants
n=14 endurance-trained cyclists (abstract: "Fourteen endurance-trained cyclists"): 37.5 ± 5.7 years, VO2max 52.0 ± 7.4 ml·kg-¹·min-¹, training 9.6 ± 2.2 h·week-¹. Divided into two groups by competitive success; group sizes, sex and the exact success criterion are not given in the abstract.
Protocol
Fresh: 5- and 20-min time trials, power and heart rate recorded.
Fatiguing protocol: cycling at 70%-80% of the rider's initial 20-min TT power until 1,000 kJ of work was completed.
Fatigued: 5- and 20-min time trials repeated after the 1,000 kJ ride (interval not stated in the abstract).
Tests done at home (remote, outside the laboratory).
Key Results
| Measure (fresh → fatigued) | Successful | Less successful |
|---|---|---|
| 20-min power drop | 6.5% | 12.5% (significantly larger) |
| 5-min power drop | no difference between groups | — |
| Heart-rate response, fresh vs fatigued | no difference between groups | — |
No p-values or fresh power values are given in the abstract.
Practical Application
In 14 well-trained amateur road cyclists (VO2max 52.0, 9.6 h a week), the more successful racers lost about half as much 20-min power after 1,000 kJ at 70%-80% of their fresh 20-min power (6.5% vs 12.5%), while the 5-min power drop did not differ. For an amateur road racer, how much of your 20-min power survives a long ride is part of what separates better results — not only fresh FTP.
A home test from this study: fresh 5- and 20-min efforts; then (the abstract does not say whether on the same day or another) ride at 70%-80% of fresh 20-min power to 1,000 kJ, repeat both efforts straight after, and compare the 20-min drop.
Inference, not tested here: the abstract promises practical recommendations for improving durability but states none; whether training it improves results is not shown.
Inference, not tested here: the same first author and a similar protocol appear in REF-427 (20 amateurs); the abstracts do not say whether the cohorts overlap, so do not count the two as independent confirmations.
Limitations
n=14 split into two groups of unstated size; the success criterion is unclear in the abstract.
Cross-sectional: better durability and better results are associated, not causally linked.
Home-based tests: pacing, conditions and equipment were not laboratory-controlled.
Written from the abstract and record metadata only (full text not read).
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level
cross-sectional comparison, n=14
Content correction 2026-09-27
2026-10-01: cross-reference repointed from a merged framework to the one that replaced it (SYNTH-01→31, 05→34, 09→70, 12/15→32, 19→26).
2026-10-01: independent check against the abstract — wording brought back to what the abstract states.
2026-10-01: citation of the superseded pointer SYNTH-12 repointed to SYNTH-32, which carries the cited content.