Over the last two weeks I've shared a fair bit of research on training volume. This week I want to show you why just reading headlines and research titles can leave you ill-informed and how to best work out which research, and which advice, is informative and which is not worth it.
"Ride more & ride harder" (which is what the pros do) is talked about and recommended a lot... and lots of research to support this can be found.
But is it research that applies to YOU... The masters cyclist?
Here are five questions to consider before trusting any research based advice. These questions are the starting points for what good science and clinicians calls "critical appraisal".
1. Who Was Studied?
A lot of advice starts with the pros. This is because they have the money and resources to fund the research that will help them with performance gains. As a result, a lot of the research results are biased to this group.
A recent study of World Tour pros found they trained around 17 to 19 hours a week in the lead-up to their season [1].
That's their job, and they recover full time too. You, on the other had, have got work, family and maybe 4 or 5 hours a week... or 10, 12 or 15 if you're lucky. If you don't look like the riders in a study or spend the time they do on the bike, then its a long bow to draw to say that what works for them will be what works for you.
2. How Old Were They?
Plenty of training research is done in riders in their 20s and 30s. For the same reason as for point one above. Even in the first article of this series, some of the research I shared covered adults aged 18 to 45...
But age matters. One study shows masters cyclists in their mid 50s recovered physically just as well as young riders after hard efforts, but still felt more fatigued and sore 48 hours later [2].
But another study showed trained runners and triathletes aged 35 to 50 recovered just the same as their younger counterparts, without the fatigue and soreness [3].
So... Two studies, looking at similar things, but two different answers. They studied two different groups and two different age cohorts. And even then, it's hard to conclude anything meaningful for a master cyclist when you study a 35yr old and a 50yr old in the same group. That's a big age difference with many changes that happen to the body in that time.
So, its important to put all that into context before accepting the results.
3. How Many People Were In It?
A 2022 review reported that 70 to 82% of published sports science studies report positive findings, and the typical study in one leading journal had just 19 people in it [4]. 19!! And the recovery study in masters cyclists mentioned above? They compared just 9 riders I one group against 8 riders in another.
Can a small group of 8, 9 or 19 tell you what most masters cyclists should be doing?! Unlikely! Even if the study is well controlled.
In my uni days studying research and statistics, I remember n=187 to the number needed for a good, well controlled study result to show anything of significance. I don't recall the details about why 187 exactly. But the point is, small studies are useful clues and can inform the direction of future studies... But mostly they are not conclusive in and of themselves.
4. What Kind Of Study Was It?
Sometimes you have to go digging to work out what's actually being looked at and reported on.
Example: A study of 176 amateur cyclists aged 40 to 60 found riders who rode more kilometres a year had higher peak power [5]. So, from this you "could" say that 'more riding makes you faster'... but wait...
This conclusion is just from a snapshot in time. Does riding more make you faster... or do faster riders ride more?
Thats something to unravel! A snapshot can't tell you all. It shows a link, NOT a cause.
5. Does It Fit YOUR Starting Point?
From a physio perspective, good clinical practice means 1. combining the best available evidence with 2. clinical expertise and 3. the person in front of you [6]. That how I work with patients, and it's how I coach.
The best study in the world still has to be applied to YOU... your goals, your recovery, your niggles and your personal metrics. The research and evidence guides that application.
So, Who's The Advice Really For?
If you want to glean the best advice from the research, then getting good at asking yourself questions like these will help you to cut through the noise and focus on just the things that matter to your situation.
This is then how you can spend your time on what actually improves your performance... which, for a masters cyclist with a busy life, is found in better use of your hours hours, not more hours and harder ones!
Enjoy the ride!
FAQ
Why is it important to critically appraise research and published studies?
Because not all research is equal... and not all of it applies to YOU. A headline or a study title rarely tells the whole story. Knowing who was studied, how many and what kind of study it was helps you decide whether it’s worth acting on, or just noise.
Should I ignore studies that weren't done in cyclists?
No. Many findings carry across. But its important to check the age and type of athlete, how close they are to you and what was actually studied.
Are pro training plans useless for me?
Not useless... just built for a different body and time. Full-time pro riders recover full time. You need a plan that accommodates your personal circumstances.
Do I need to read research papers myself?
Not at all! Knowing which questions to ask (like the ones in this article above) is a good place to start filtering what you hear.
References
1. Mateo-March M, Barranco-Gil D, Muriel X, Pallarés JG, Valenzuela PL. Training characteristics of male and female World Tour professional road cyclists before the competitive phase. Biol Sport. 2026;43:933-940. doi:10.5114/biolsport.2026.156234
2. Borges NR, Reaburn PR, Doering TM, Argus CK, Driller MW. Age-related changes in physical and perceptual markers of recovery following high-intensity interval cycle exercise. Exp Aging Res. 2018;44(4):338-349. doi:10.1080/0361073X.2018.1477361
3. Markus I, Constantini K, Goldstein N, et al. Age differences in recovery rate following an aerobic-based exercise protocol inducing muscle damage among amateur, male athletes. Front Physiol. 2022;13:916924. doi:10.3389/fphys.2022.916924
4. Mesquida C, Murphy J, Lakens D, Warne J. Replication concerns in sports and exercise science: a narrative review of selected methodological issues in the field. R Soc Open Sci. 2022;9(12):220946. doi:10.1098/rsos.220946
5. Alvero-Cruz JR, García Romero JC, Ordonez FJ, Mongin D, Correas-Gómez L, Nikolaidis PT, Knechtle B. Age and training-related changes on body composition and fitness in male amateur cyclists. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(1):93. doi:10.3390/ijerph19010093
6. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ. 1996;312(7023):71-72. doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71