A Survey Exploring the Programming Practices of Cycling Coaches: How are Intensity Zones and Intensity Distribution Models Used?

Models of training intensity distribution, such as polarised, pyramidal, and threshold, often have varying interpretations in the literature. Despite observational research into the practices of elite endurance athletes and a growing body of experimental research into the application of intensity models, insights into how and why coaches prescribe these models are lacking. Therefore, this study explored the practices and perceptions of cycling coaches concerning their use of fitness testing, intensity zone generation, and periodisation within their programming. 117 cycling coaches completed an online survey focused on their coaching background, use of testing and test protocols, training monitoring practices, and perspectives on training intensity distribution. We found that coaches mostly used functional threshold power testing to determine intensity zones, with the number used depending on the measure, e.g., power or heart rate. Respondents defined the polarised model as 80.8 ± 4.6% (low), 3.3 ± 6.1% (moderate), 17.4 ± 4.7% (high), the threshold model as 44.5 ± 16.7% (low), 44.0 ± 13.8% (moderate), 13.2 ± 7.6% (high), and the pyramidal model as 67.5 ± 10.4% (low), 23.4 ± 8.6% (moderate), 9.1 ± 4.0% (high), by time in zone. Most respondents (94%) would change the intensity distribution depending on the phase of the season. While polarised was the most common model overall, moving from a pyramidal to a polarised model towards racing was the most common periodisation strategy. This study builds on observational research to provide a unique insight into the rationale behind coaches' intensity distribution model prescriptions and periodisation.