Complete Scientific Bibliography

Research References Supporting Bike Analytics

Referenced Scientific Literature

All metrics and formulas in Bike Analytics are backed by peer-reviewed research published in leading sports science, exercise physiology, and biomechanics journals.

📚 Journal Coverage

References span publications including:

  • Journal of Applied Physiology
  • Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise
  • European Journal of Applied Physiology
  • International Journal of Sports Medicine
  • Journal of Sports Sciences
  • Sports Medicine
  • Journal of Applied Biomechanics
  • Sports Engineering
  • Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
  • Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports
  • Sensors (MDPI)

Essential Books

  1. Allen, H., & Coggan, A.R.
    (2019)
    Training and Racing with a Power Meter (3rd Edition).
    VeloPress. Co-authored with Stephen McGregor, PhD.
    Significance: Foundational text defining modern power-based training. Translated to 12 languages. Introduced Normalized Power (NP), Training Stress Score (TSS), Intensity Factor (IF), power profiling, and quadrant analysis. Most influential book on power meter training.
  2. Friel, J.
    (2018)
    The Cyclist's Training Bible (5th Edition).
    VeloPress.
    Significance: Originally published 1996. Popularized periodization in cycling. Best-selling cycling training book. Comprehensive methodology for macrocycles, mesocycles, microcycles integrated with power meter metrics. Co-founder of TrainingPeaks.
  3. Cheung, S., & Zabala, M. (Eds.)
    (2017)
    Cycling Science.
    Human Kinetics.
    Contributors: 43 scientists and coaches. Coverage: Biomechanics, aerodynamics, nutrition, bike fit, pedaling technique, track cycling, BMX, ultra-distance. Authoritative compilation of current research.

Functional Threshold Power (FTP) Research

  1. MacInnis, M.J., Thomas, A.C.Q., & Phillips, S.M.
    (2019)
    Is the FTP Test a Reliable, Reproducible and Functional Assessment Tool in Highly-Trained Athletes?
    International Journal of Exercise Science. PMC6886609.
    Key Findings: High reliability (ICC = 0.98, r² = 0.96). Repeatability: +13 to -17W variance, mean bias -2W. Identifies 1-hour sustainable power in 89% of athletes. Typical error of measurement: 2.3%. Impact: Validated FTP as reliable field-accessible metric.
  2. Karsten, B., et al.
    (2019)
    The Validity of Functional Threshold Power and Maximal Oxygen Uptake for Cycling Performance in Moderately Trained Cyclists.
    PMC6835290.
    Key Findings: W/kg at FTP 20-min correlates with performance (r = -0.74, p < 0.01). VO₂max shows no significant correlation (r = -0.37). Impact: FTP more valid than VO₂max for predicting cycling performance.
  3. Gavin, T.P., et al.
    (2012)
    An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of FTP Testing.
    Journal of Sports Sciences.
    20-minute test protocol shows high correlation with lab-measured lactate threshold. Ramp test and 8-minute test also validated with different characteristics. Individual variability requires personalized validation over time.

Critical Power & W' (Anaerobic Capacity)

  1. Monod, H., & Scherrer, J.
    (1965)
    The work capacity of a synergic muscular group.
    Journal de Physiologie.
    Seminal work: Established Critical Power theory. Hyperbolic relationship between power and time to exhaustion. CP as asymptote - maximum sustainable power indefinitely. W' (W-prime) as finite anaerobic work capacity above CP. Linear relationship: Work = CP × Time + W'.
  2. Jones, A.M., et al.
    (2019)
    Critical Power: Theory and Applications.
    Journal of Applied Physiology, 126(6), 1905-1915.
    Comprehensive review: 50+ years of CP research. CP represents maximal metabolic steady state—boundary between aerobic/anaerobic dominance. Key findings: CP typically 72-77% of 1-minute max power. CP falls within ±5W of FTP for most cyclists. W' ranges 6-25 kJ (typical: 15-20 kJ). CP more physiologically robust than FTP across test protocols.
  3. Skiba, P.F., et al.
    (2014)
    Modeling the Expenditure and Reconstitution of Work Capacity Above Critical Power.
    Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise.
    W'BAL model: Real-time tracking of anaerobic battery status. Expenditure: W'exp = ∫(Power - CP) when P > CP. Recovery kinetics: Exponential with time constant τ = 546 × e^(-0.01×ΔCP) + 316. Application: Essential for MTB (88+ surges per 2h race), race strategy optimization, attack/sprint management. Now in WKO5, Golden Cheetah, advanced cycling computers.
  4. Skiba, P.F., et al.
    (2015)
    Intramuscular determinants of the ability to recover work capacity above critical power.
    European Journal of Applied Physiology.
    Further refinement of W' reconstitution model. Examined physiological mechanisms underlying W' recovery dynamics.
  5. Clark, I.E., et al.
    (2021)
    A Comparative Analysis of Critical Power Models in Elite Road Cyclists.
    PMC8562202.
    Elite cyclists: VO₂max = 71.9 ± 5.9 ml·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹. Different CP models yield different W' values (p = 0.0002). CP similar to respiratory compensation point. Nonlinear-3 model W' comparable to work at Wmax.
  6. Poole, D.C., et al.
    (2016)
    Critical Power: An Important Fatigue Threshold in Exercise Physiology.
    Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise.
    CP represents demarcation between sustainable and unsustainable exercise. Below CP: metabolic steady state, lactate stabilizes. Above CP: progressive metabolic byproduct accumulation → inevitable fatigue.

Training Load & Performance Management

  1. Coggan, A.R., & Allen, H.
    (2003, 2010)
    Training and racing using a power meter: an introduction.
    TrainingPeaks / VeloPress.
    TSS Formula: TSS = (duration × NP × IF) / (FTP × 3600) × 100. Where 100 TSS = 1 hour at FTP. Accounts for both duration and intensity. Foundation for CTL/ATL/TSB performance management. Proprietary TrainingPeaks metrics now industry-standard.
  2. Banister, E.W., Calvert, T.W., Savage, M.V., & Bach, T.
    (1975)
    A Systems Model of Training for Athletic Performance.
    Australian Journal of Sports Medicine, 7, 57-61.
    Original impulse-response model. Fitness-fatigue paradigm: Performance = Fitness - Fatigue. Exponentially weighted moving averages foundation. Theoretical basis for TSS/CTL/ATL. Transformed periodization from art to science with mathematical precision.
  3. Banister, E.W., et al.
    (1991)
    Modeling elite athletic performance.
    Physiological Testing of Elite Athletes.
    Further development of training impulse-response model. Application to elite athlete periodization and performance prediction.
  4. Busso, T.
    (2003)
    Variable dose-response relationship between exercise training and performance.
    Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise.
    Training adaptations follow predictable mathematical patterns. Individual variability requires personalized modeling. Optimal training load balances stimulus and recovery. Ramp rates >12 CTL/week associated with injury risk.
  5. Murray, N.B., et al.
    (2017)
    Training Load Monitoring Using Exponentially Weighted Moving Averages.
    Journal of Sports Sciences.
    Validated EWMA acute/chronic load ratios. Time constants: k=7 (ATL), k=42 (CTL). Alpha: α = 2/(n+1). Tracks performance and injury risk.

Aerodynamics Research

  1. Blocken, B., et al.
    (2017)
    Riding Against the Wind: A Review of Competition Cycling Aerodynamics.
    Sports Engineering, 20, 81-94.
    Comprehensive CFD studies. Aerodynamic drag: 80-90% of force at speed. CdA ranges: 0.18-0.25 m² (TT elit) to 0.25-0.30 m² (good amateurs). Drag coefficient: 0.6 (TT) to >0.8 (upright). Cyclist pedaling: ~6% more drag. Power savings: Each 0.01 m² CdA reduction saves ~10W at 40 km/h. Drafting: 27-50% power reduction following wheel.
  2. Blocken, B., et al.
    (2013)
    Aerodynamic drag in cycling: methods of assessment.
    Sports Engineering.
    Methods for measuring and validating aerodynamic drag. Wind tunnel vs. field testing protocols. CFD validation studies.
  3. Martin, J.C., et al.
    (2006)
    Validation of Mathematical Model for Road Cycling Power.
    Journal of Applied Biomechanics.
    Power equation components: P_total = P_aero + P_gravity + P_rolling + P_kinetic. P_aero = CdA × 0.5 × ρ × V³ (cubic with velocity). P_gravity = m × g × sin(gradient) × V. P_rolling = Crr × m × g × cos(gradient) × V. Validated against real-world power meter data. Enables predictive course modeling.
  4. Debraux, P., et al.
    (2011)
    Aerodynamic drag in cycling: methods and measurement.
    Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering.
    Field testing with power meters provides practical CdA measurement. Wind tunnel remains gold standard but expensive. Position optimization: 5-15% CdA improvement. Equipment gains compound for 3-5% total improvement.

Biomechanics & Pedaling Efficiency

  1. Lucia, A., et al.
    (2001)
    Physiology of professional road cycling.
    Sports Medicine.
    Optimal cadence ranges: Tempo/threshold 85-95 RPM, VO₂max intervals 100-110 RPM, steep climbs 70-85 RPM. Elite cyclists self-select cadences minimizing energy cost. Higher cadences reduce muscular force per pedal stroke. Individual optimization varies with fiber type.
  2. Coyle, E.F., et al.
    (1991)
    Cycling efficiency is related to the percentage of type I muscle fibers.
    Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise.
    Cycling efficiency relates to % Type I muscle fibers. Gross efficiency: 18-25% (elite: 22-25%). Pedaling rate affects efficiency—individual optimal exists. Training improves metabolic and mechanical efficiency.
  3. Patterson, R.P., & Moreno, M.I.
    (1990)
    Bicycle pedalling forces as a function of pedalling rate and power output.
    Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise.
    Effective pedal force varies throughout pedal stroke cycle. Peak force: 90-110° past top dead center. Skilled cyclists minimize negative work during upstroke. Quantification of Torque Effectiveness and Pedal Smoothness.
  4. Jeukendrup, A.E., & Martin, J.
    (2001)
    Improving Cycling Performance: How Should We Spend Our Time and Money?
    Sports Medicine, 31(7), 559-569.
    Performance hierarchy: 1. Cyclist position (biggest impact), 2. Equipment geometry, 3. Rolling resistance and drivetrain losses. Cadence selection affects economy. Balance aerodynamics with power output.
  5. Atkinson, G., Davison, R., Jeukendrup, A., & Passfield, L.
    (2003)
    Science and Cycling: Current Knowledge and Future Directions for Research.
    Journal of Sports Sciences, 21, 767-787. PubMed: 14579871.
    Determinants of power output and velocity. Predictive physiological markers: Power at LT2, peak power (>5.5 W/kg), % Type I fibers, MLSS. Mathematical modeling applications.

Climbing Performance

  1. Padilla, S., et al.
    (1999)
    Level ground and uphill cycling ability in professional road cycling.
    European Journal of Applied Physiology.
    Climbing determined primarily by W/kg at threshold. Aerodynamics negligible on steep gradients (>7%). Gross efficiency slightly lower uphill vs. flat. Body position changes affect power and comfort.
  2. Swain, D.P.
    (1997)
    A model for optimizing cycling performance by varying power on hills and in wind.
    Journal of Sports Sciences.
    Power equation for climbing. VAM calculation: (elevation gain / time) predicts W/kg. VAM benchmarks: 700-900 m/h (club), 1000-1200 (competitors), 1300-1500 (elite), >1500 (World Tour). Estimation: W/kg ≈ VAM / (200 + 10 × gradient%).
  3. Lucia, A., et al.
    (2004)
    Physiological characteristics of the best Eritrean runners—exceptional running economy.
    Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism.
    Grand Tour climbers analysis. W/kg at threshold: Competitive 4.0+, elite amateurs 4.5+, semi-pros 5.0+, World Tour 5.5-6.5. Low body weight critical—1kg matters at elite level. VO₂max >75 ml/kg/min common in elite climbers.

Power Meter Validation & Accuracy

  1. Maier, T., et al.
    (2017)
    Accuracy of Cycling Power Meters Against a Mathematical Model of Treadmill Cycling.
    International Journal of Sports Medicine. PubMed: 28482367.
    Tested 54 power meters from 9 manufacturers. Mean deviation: -0.9 ± 3.2%. 6 devices deviated >±5%. Coefficient of variation: 1.2 ± 0.9%. Significant inter-device variability. Importance of calibration and consistency.
  2. Bouillod, A., et al.
    (2022)
    Caveats and Recommendations to Assess the Validity and Reliability of Cycling Power Meters: A Systematic Scoping Review.
    Sensors, 22(1), 386. PMC8749704.
    PRISMA review: 74 studies analyzed. Accuracy most studied metric (74 studies). SRM most used as gold standard. Power tested: up to 1700W. Cadence: 40-180 RPM. Comprehensive validation methodology recommendations.

Periodization & Training Distribution

  1. González-Ravé, J.M., et al.
    (2023)
    Training Periodization, Intensity Distribution, and Volume in Trained Cyclists: A Systematic Review.
    International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 18(2), 112-126. PubMed: 36640771.
    Block vs. traditional periodization compared. Volume: 7.5-11.68 hours/week. Both improve VO₂max, peak power, thresholds. No evidence favoring specific model. Pyramidal and polarized training intensity distribution both effective.
  2. Rønnestad, B.R., Hansen, J., & Ellefsen, S.
    (2014)
    Block Periodization of High-Intensity Aerobic Intervals Provides Superior Training Effects in Trained Cyclists.
    Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 24(1), 34-42. PubMed: 22646668.
    4 weeks concentrated VO₂max training. Front-loading intensity within mesocycle. Block periodization produces superior adaptations compared to mixed approach.

VO₂max & Lactate Threshold

  1. Støren, Ø., et al.
    (2013)
    Physiological Determinants of the Cycling Time Trial.
    Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 27(9), 2366-2373.
    Power at lactate threshold: best laboratory predictor. LT more predictive than VO₂max alone. Fractional utilization critical. Elites: 82-95% VO₂max at LT vs. 50-60% untrained.
  2. Faude, O., Kindermann, W., & Meyer, T.
    (2009)
    Lactate Threshold Concepts: How Valid Are They?
    Sports Medicine, 39(6), 469-490.
    Compared multiple LT determination methods. MLSS as gold standard. FTP20 overestimates vs. MLSS. MLSS = 88.5% of FTP20.
  3. Coyle, E.F.
    (1995)
    Integration of the Physiological Factors Determining Endurance Performance Ability.
    Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, 23, 25-63.
    Classic review of endurance physiology. Integration: VO₂max, lactate threshold, economy. Determinants of cycling performance. Seminal work on performance physiology.

Additional References

  1. Seiler, S.
    (2010)
    What is Best Practice for Training Intensity and Duration Distribution in Endurance Athletes?
    International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance.
    Pioneering work on polarized training distribution. 80/20 rule: 80% low intensity (Zone 1-2), 20% high intensity (Zone 4-6). Observed across multiple endurance sports and elite athletes.
  2. Jeukendrup, A., & Gleeson, M.
    (2010)
    Sport Nutrition (2nd Edition).
    Human Kinetics.
    Comprehensive sports nutrition textbook. Energy systems, macronutrient metabolism, hydration, supplementation, periodized nutrition strategies for training and competition.

Online Resources & Platform Documentation

  1. TrainingPeaks
    (n.d.)
    The Science of the TrainingPeaks Performance Manager.
    TrainingPeaks Learn Articles.
    Reference →
  2. TrainingPeaks
    (n.d.)
    Training Stress Scores (TSS) Explained.
    TrainingPeaks Help Center.
    Reference →
  3. TrainingPeaks
    (n.d.)
    A Coach's Guide to ATL, CTL & TSB.
    TrainingPeaks Coach Blog.
    Reference →
  4. TrainerRoad
    (n.d.)
    What are CTL, ATL, TSB & TSS? Why Do They Matter?
    TrainerRoad Blog.
    Reference →
  5. Strava
    (n.d.)
    Strava API Documentation.
    Strava Developers.
    Reference →
  6. Garmin
    (n.d.)
    Garmin Connect Developer Program.
    Garmin Developer Portal.
    Reference →
  7. Wahoo Fitness
    (n.d.)
    Wahoo Fitness API.
    Wahoo Developer Resources.
    Reference →
  8. Polar
    (n.d.)
    Polar AccessLink API.
    Polar Developer Documentation.
    Reference →
  9. ANT+ Alliance
    (n.d.)
    ANT+ Protocol Documentation.
    thisisant.com.
    Reference →

Competitive Platform References

  1. WKO5
    (n.d.)
    WKO5 Advanced Cycling Analytics Software.
    TrainingPeaks / WKO.
    Reference →
    Desktop software. $169 one-time purchase. Most advanced analytics available. Power-duration modeling, FRC, Pmax, individualized zones. No subscription. Integration with TrainingPeaks.
  2. Intervals.icu
    (n.d.)
    Intervals.icu Free Power-Based Training Platform.
    intervals.icu.
    Reference →
    Freemium (optional $4/month support). Auto FTP estimation (eFTP). Fitness/Fatigue/Form chart. Auto interval detection. AI training plans. Modern web UI. Weekly updates.
  3. Golden Cheetah
    (n.d.)
    Golden Cheetah Open-Source Cycling Analytics.
    goldencheetah.org.
    Reference →
    100% open-source and free. Complete power analysis suite. 300+ metrics. Highly customizable. Desktop only. No mobile app. No cloud sync. For advanced users.

Institutional Research Programs

  1. British Cycling
    (n.d.)
    British Cycling Research Programs.
    British Cycling / UK Sport.
    Focus areas: Talent identification and development, performance analysis and modeling, training load monitoring, psychological components of elite performance, environmental physiology, equipment optimization.
  2. Journal of Science and Cycling
    (n.d.)
    Journal of Science and Cycling - Open Access.
    Editor: Dr. Mikel Zabala, University of Granada.
    Open-access peer-reviewed journal. Recent topics: Elite training load analysis, e-sports cycling performance, 2D kinematic analysis, lactate accumulation protocols, rehabilitation protocols for cyclists.

Science-Based Cycling Analytics

These 50+ scientific references form the evidence base for Bike Analytics. Every formula, metric, and recommendation is grounded in peer-reviewed research published in leading exercise physiology, biomechanics, and sports engineering journals.

The bibliography spans foundational works from the 1960s (Monod & Scherrer's Critical Power) through cutting-edge 2020s research on W' balance modeling, aerodynamics, and training load optimization.

Continuous Research Integration

Bike Analytics commits to ongoing review of new research and updates to algorithms as methodologies are refined and validated. Science evolves—our analytics evolve with it.

Research Overview → Technical Formulas Back to Home