Conference Paper

The Compound Score in elite road cycling

Peter Leo1*, James Spragg2, John Wakefield3,4, Jeroen Swart2,3,4
1University Innsbruck, Department Sport Science, Innsbruck, Austria
2 University of Cape Town HPALS Research Center
3 UAE Team Emirates
4 Science to Sport

* Correspondence: Peter Leo, peter.leo@uibk.ac.at

Received: 28 February 2022; Accepted: 30 March 2022; Published: 23 September 2022

Keywords: power output, body mass, competition, scaling

compound score. In a second step absolute,

1. Introduction relative power output and the compound
score were compared to performances in
Elite road cycling is characterized by racing races to assess whether individual variables
over varied terrain, ranging from flat races to were correlated with performance, and to
extremely mountainous terrain1,2. derive positive and negative predictive
Researchers have frequently attempted to values.
quantify the performance characteristics of The Compound Score can be calculated as
cyclists to predict race success based on follows:
external and internal load metrics including
power output, heart rate and speed 3–6. Recent Compound Score [W2.kg-1] = absolute power
research reported a strong relationship output [W] × relative power output [W.kg-1]
between the power profile and race Equation (1)
performance7,8. However, to date, there is still
an ongoing debate whether absolute power Race performances during the season for
output; a mass exponent, or relative power; each participant were screened to select the
power output normalized to body mass, is best 3 single day race results. Results were
more advantageous. For this reason, the log transformed and weighted accordingly as
current study used both absolute and relative follows:
power output to calculate a compound score
to investigate its predictive ability for race Table 1. represents weighting factors according to
performance. single day race categories

Single Day
2. Materials and Methods
Cat Weighting
Power output data were recorded from 1.1 2
power meter system (SRAM Red, Quarq, 1.2 1.5
Spearfish, South Dakota, USA) fitted to the 1.2 U23 1.1
participants bicycle (Revelator Alto Elite, NC 1
KTM Fahrrad GmbH, Mattighofen, Austria) 1.2 NC 0.8
during training and racing in a competitive Cat – category, NC – nation cup
racing session. Body mass (Kern DS 150k1,
Subjects — Thirty male U23 professional
Kern & Sohn, Germany) was recorded in
cyclists participated in the study (age,
conjunction with racing events. Data from
20.1±1.1, body mass 69 ± 6.9 kg, height 182.6
training and racing data were analyzed
± 6.2cm) All participants provided informed
(WKO5, Trainingpeaks LLC, US) together
written consent and were active members of
with a novel adaptation of these data - the
© 2022 Leo P., licensee JSC. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
((http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited.
 Leo et al.

a UCI Continental team during the cycling

season(s) analyzed. A
600
Win
575 Podium

Statistical Analysis — All values are 550

expressed as mean ± standard deviation and 525

or mean difference (MD). A Pearson product 500

MMP (W)
correlation was used to investigate the 475

relationship between 5-min MMP, (W, W.kg- 450

1), compound score of 5-min and the best
425

single day result score. The correlation 400

coefficient was interpreted according to 375

Hopkins9 for a small (<.3), medium (.3-.5) or 350

large (>.5) effect. The performance threshold 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

was calculated as the ratio from the true to Best single day result score

false observations, which were below or B

8.00 Win
above the corresponding cut offs relating to Podium
7.75
5-min MMP, (W, W.kg-1) and compound 7.50

score. All statistical analyses were completed 7.25

using GraphPad Prism (version 8.0.0 for Mac 7.00

MMP (W.kg-1)
OS, GraphPad Software, San Diego, USA). 6.75

The alpha level of statistical significance was 6.50

set as p >.05 two tailed. 6.25

6.00

5.75
3. Results
5.50

5.25
Table 1. demonstrates the participants’
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
descriptive performance characteristics. Best single day result score

C
5-min 5-min MMP Compound 4000
Podium
Win
MMP (W) (W.kg-1) Score (W2.kg-1) 3800

3600
Compound Score (W2.kg-1)

3400
445 ± 36 6.6 ± 0.3 2995 ± 264
3200

5-min MMP – 5-minute mean maximum power 3000

2800

Absolute MMP (r=.52, p=.003) and the 2600

compound score (r=.54, p=.002) significantly 2400

correlated with the best single day result 2200

score, while relative MMP did not (r=.11, 2000

p.550). Positive/negative performance 0 20 40 60 80

Best single day result score
100 120

thresholds were >470W, 50.0/90.0%; for

absolute MMP, >6.4 W.kg-1, 20.8/50.0% for Figure 1. Illustrates the relationship between
relative MMP and >3110 W2.kg-1, 66.7/95.2% absolute (A); relative (B) mean maximum
for the compound score respectively – see power (MMP); compound score (C) and the
figure 1. best single day result score. The grey shaded
area represents the performance threshold
for the variable used to predict a race
podium or win.

4. Discussion

Citation: Journal of Science and Cycling 2022, 11:2

Page 2
The Compound Score in elite road cycling

In keeping with our hypothesis that both References

a high absolute power output as well as a
(1) Padilla, S.; Mujika, I.; Cuesta, G.; Goiriena,
high relative power output are important in J. J. Level Ground and Uphill Cycling
determining performance, we have Ability in Professional Road Cycling. Med
demonstrated that the product of these two Sci Sport. Exerc 1999, 31 (6), 878–885.
variables has a greater correlation with and is https://doi.org/10.1097/00005768-
able to predict a successful race outcome to a 199906000-00017.
greater extent than either variable alone. The (2) Nimmerichter, A.; Eston, R.; Bachl, N.;
two greatest forces a cyclist is required to Williams, C. Effects of Low and High
Cadence Interval Training on Power
overcome are gravitational force and drag.
Output in Flat and Uphill Cycling Time-
The former requires a high relative power
Trials. Eur J Appl Physiol 2012, 112 (1), 69–
output while the latter requires absolute 78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-011-
power. As relative power output scales 1957-5.
inversely to mass and absolute power output (3) Sanders, D.; van Erp, T. The Physical
scales proportionally with mass, these two Demands and Power Profile of
variables represent a diverging set of Professional Men’s Cycling Races: An
performance characteristics relative to the Updated Review. Int J Sport. Physiol
mass of the rider. As such, there may be a Perform 2021, 16 (1), 3–12.
https://doi.org/10.1123/IJSPP.2020-0508.
mass at which cyclists exhibits an optimal
(4) Jobson, S. A.; Passfield, L.; Atkinson, G.;
balance between these two characteristics to
Barton, G.; Scarf, P. The Analysis and
achieve the highest performance Utilization of Cycling Training Data.
characteristics. The compound score seeks to Sport. Med 2009, 39 (10), 833–844.
provide a variable with which the balance of https://doi.org/10.2165/11317840-
these diverging performance variables can be 000000000-00000.
measured. We have demonstrated that for (5) Sanders, D.; Heijboer, M. Physical
U/23 professional cycling, a compound score Demands and Power Profile of Different
of 3110 W2.kg-1 has a 66.7% positive Stage Types within a Cycling Grand Tour.
Eur J Sport. Sci 2019, 19 (6), 736–744.
predictive value for the achievement of a
https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2018.155
podium or race win result. Conversely, a
4706.
compound score less than 3110 W2.kg-1 is (6) Gallo, G.; Leo, P.; Mateo-March, M.;
associated with a 95.2% negative predictive Giorgi, A.; Faelli, E.; Ruggeri, P.; Mujika,
score. i.e., a compound score below this value I.; Filipas, L. Cross-Sectional Differences
is associated with only 4.8% likelihood of a in Race Demands Between Junior, Under
race podium result. To our knowledge, the 23, and Professional Road Cyclists. Int J
compound score is able to measure Sport. Perform Anal. 2022, aop (1), 1–8.
performance characteristics for U23 one day (7) Leo, P.; Spragg, J.; Simon, D.; Lawley, J.;
Mujika, I. Climbing Performance in U23
racing success. Further research is required to
and Professional Cyclists during a Multi-
assess whether the compound score is able to
Stage Race. Int J Sport. Med 2021, in print.
predict stage race success or whether other (8) Leo, P.; Spragg, J.; Menz, V.; Simon, D.;
factors such as the power profile8 or fatigue Mujika, I.; Lawley, J. S. Power Profiling
resistance10–12 provide greater insight. and Workload Characteristcs in U23 and
Professional Cyclists during the
Funding: This research received no external
Multistage Race “Tour of the Alps.” Int J
funding. Sport. Med 2020.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like (9) Hopkins, W. G. A Scale of Magnitudes for
to thank all participants for their voluntary Effect Statistics. A new view Stat. 2002, 502,
411.
participation.
(10) Leo, P.; Spragg, J.; Simon, D.; Mujika, I.;
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no Lawley, S. J. Power Profiling, Workload
conflict of interest. Characteristics and Race Performance of
U23 and Professional Cyclists during the
Multistage Race Tour of the Alps. Int J
Sport. Physiol Perform 2021, in press.

Citation: Journal of Science and Cycling 2022, 11:2

Page 3
 Leo et al.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsp (12) Muriel, X.; Mateo-March, M.; Valenzuela,

p.2020-0381. P. L.; Zabala, M.; Lucia, A.; Pallares, J. G.;
(11) van Erp, T.; Sanders, D.; Lamberts, R. P. Barranco-Gil, D. Durability and
Maintaining Power Output with Repeatability of Professional Cyclists
Accumulating Levels of Work Done Is a during a Grand Tour. Eur. J. Sport Sci.
Key Determinant for Success in 2021, 1–8.
Professional Cycling. Med Sci Sport. Exerc
2021, in press. .

Citation: Journal of Science and Cycling 2022, 11:2

Page 4