Collegiate Cycling - varsity programs, the state of the union

State of Union

College cycling programs in the USA are either "sport clubs" or "varsity sports." As of 2015, 17 varsity programs have been approved by USA Cycling. "Approval" means that the programs have met various requirements set out by USA Cycling. These requirements primarily focus on the level of financial support provided to riders who attend the school and ride on the varsity squad. Nearly all varsity programs will pay for the costs to compete (team clothing, entry fees & travel expenses). Many offer at least $10,000 per year in scholarships. The bigger varsity programs also have various infrastructure items like team vans, trailers, on-campus facilities, and paid staff. Effectively, these varsity programs are supported on the level of many UCI Continental Teams.

Sports Clubs, on the other hand, are typically "pay-to-play," with the students picking up the tab for the majority of expenses. There are a few club teams that receive substantial financial support from their university or college, but most receive a small percentage of what is necessary to run a successful program. Club programs are also typically student run. While this is undeniably a great educational experience for the student leadership, it is the exceptional set of student leaders that can compete with paid staff for the long-term development and management of a competitive athletic program.

I have been told that the average varsity program has an operating budget around $150,000 per year. As I understand it, this does not include staff compensation, capital goods, or scholarships. The University of Colorado Boulder, as an example of a "sport club," receives about $5,500 per year from the school as part of the club sports program. Obviously, quite a difference in financial resources.

The emergence of varsity cycling programs could be reaching critical mass. New programs are announced each year and there is rumor of 10 new teams filing applications for 2016. USA Cycling is in the process of revamping the division structure that will eventually separate varsity and club programs. This restructuring is necessary to accommodate the new programs and especially to address the impact of the varsity program on the competitive landscape.

Varsity programs are recruiting and retaining the best high school talent. They are able to financially support larger programs with more riders. The recent national results illustrate the relative competitive advantage:  in the last 5 years no club program has won a national title in any discipline (Track, Road, CX, MTB, BMX) in either division (I and II, both have varsity programs). This is approximately 45 National Championship events! CU was the first to break this stranglehold by winning the 2014 MTB National Championship.

At 2015 Road Nationals, only one Division I varsity program placed outside of the top-10 (Lindsey Wilson College). The remaining five Division I programs placed 1st, 3rd, 5th, 6th and 9th. In Division II, 7 of the top 10 schools were varsity programs. The results clearly establish the relative strength of the varsity programs, but perhaps even more telling is the perception at the events themselves. Conference competitions often see varsity programs stacking the field and smothering the competition. Varsity teams also look the part with team vans, trailers, staff support and various other trappings of a well-financed program. The psychological impact of this reality is significant in its own right.

Additionally, the varsity programs are best situated to field quality teams in all 5 cycling disciplines. They tend to dominate the National Rankings (based on performance in all 5 disciplines) because they have the resources to send teams to 5 National Championship events during the academic year.

But this is a good thing

In the long-term, the growth of the varsity cycling "movement" is a good thing. This will mean more opportunities for promising athletes to continue developing while enhancing their future prospects with an education. With increased support at the collegiate level, the depth of the field will continue to improve and will eventually represent the majority of 19-22 year old talent in the sport. Inevitably, the collegiate ranks will become important in the national development pipeline and professional teams will take collegiate performances more seriously.

Additionally, collegiate cycling will continue to be a welcoming environment to athletes who come to the sport later in life. Collegiate cycling does a good job of bringing new riders into the sport because of the established structure and guiding principle of open participation. A well-developed collegiate cycling environment will identify and direct this new talent much quicker than the USAC open amateur racing circuit.

Up next...can collegiate cycling be relevant in the larger cycling arena?

Post #1 - Kick-off

Post #2 - The State of the Union with Varsity Programs

Post #3 - The Prospects for Collegiate Cycling as a Development Pathway

Collegiate Cycling - Part 1

Last week I wrapped up a full season as coach of the University of Colorado Boulder Cycling Team. I have coached the team in an expanding capacity over the last 3 years. 2014/15 was the first year that I managed all disciplines (with the exception of BMX) for a complete academic year. As a result I have had contact with the various disciplines, both men and women, and the various categories in which the student-athletes compete.

The University of Colorado Boulder has over 120 student-athletes compete during a typical academic year. Men and women compete in 3 different categories and in 4 disciplines (Track, MTB, CX, and Road) over approximately 20 competition weeks. There is a wide range of experience and fitness with many students trying the sport for the first time. These new cyclists trained, traveled, and competed shoulder-to-shoulder with seasoned competitors who have represented the USA at World Championship events. This is a unique environment in that the full spectrum of competitors rarely interact so closely with each other.

In addition to providing an enriching experience for students, I believe collegiate cycling can be a legitimate development pathway to the national and international professional ranks. We have a number of competitors that have represented in the USA in World Championships in the last 12 months. These athletes have a promising start to a professional career on the bike. Unfortunately, they are often forced to choose between committing to racing the collegiate calendar or the national calendar. Many athletes must even withdraw from school to engage in the level of competition they feel is necessary to advance their careers. This is unfortunate, and I think with some vision, planning, and effort, ultimately unnecessary.

Can collegiate cycling develop in such a way to keep student-athletes in school while still providing top-level competition? This has been achieved for football, basketball, baseball and other varsity sports, why not cycling?

The next several posts will address various aspects of collegiate cycling and hopefully encourage increased attention and support of the program from the various stakeholders.

Post #1 - Kick-off

Post #2 - The State of the Union with Varsity Programs

Post #3 - The Prospects for Collegiate Cycling as a Development Pathway

Omloop Het Nieuwsblad 2015

It is easy to play armchair quarterback and pick apart what ETIXX - QUICK STEP (EQS) did or didn't do. However, if you are an aspiring racer it is an opportunity to deconstruct the outcome for your own learning.

Obviously, EQS did everything right to set up the outcome in their favor. The selection was made with around 40km to go. After an inopportune puncture for Vanmarke, the front group of four riders was established: three EQS riders (Boonen, Terpstra, Vandenbergh) and Stannard for SKY. By all accounts, the odds were stacked greatly in EQS's favor. This tactical situation was further enhanced by the fact that Stybar was sitting on the only threatening chase group.

Either out of overconfidence or concern about being caught from behind, all 3 EQS riders took over the pacemaking, letting Stannard sit on, until around 8km to go. Finally, at 8km, Boonen stopped pulling and started saving energy for his big attack at 4.5km to go. At no point between the split and 4.5km to go, did EQS attack Stannard.

So what could they have done differently?

Work over Stannard - The obvious first choice would be to attack/counterattack Stannard starting at 20-25km out. Ideally, EQS would have sprung a rider and forced Stannard into a work situation. Putting a rider up the road would have forced Stannard to concede the top step or take the front. Under normal circumstances, such a strategy would have worked. However, sometimes the isolated rider is just that strong. Even if ultimately unsuccessful, it would have taken some punch out of Stannard's legs for the finish.

Also, I don't think I would have been too concerned about a catch by the Van Avermaet, Vanmarke, Stybar group. Stybar would have arrived fresh and ready to go in the end game.

Save Boonen - Another option would have been to leave the work to Terpstra and Vandenbergh and let Boonen do the same amount of work as Stannard -- none. At least then Boonen would have been as good as possible for the end game.


Usually, the best approach is to try everything, or in this case at least try something. If there was a plan, it seemed to rely on Boonen riding away solo in the last few km. Even with this plan, it seems like it would have been better to soften Stannard up with a few preliminary attacks from Terpstra and Vandenbergh. At the very least, a few attacks would have helped to assess how strong Stannard was. By allowing him to sit on, EQS really didn't know what they were dealing with and couldn't tweak their end game for the greatest possible chance of success.

Surely, there are relevant details that we as viewers don't know. It goes without saying that these details would have been factored into the EQS game plan. Whether EQS got it right or wrong isn't really that important, unless you just need to feed your ego. Rather, for the mindful racer, the important thing is doing a critical analysis of the tactical game with the information you have available. 

Effect of pedaling rate

I just came across a recent study that addresses a topic of particular interest to me.

Effects of 2 weeks of low‑intensity cycle training with different pedaling rates on the work rate at lactate threshold, Eur J Appl Physiol, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00421-014-3081-9

This study suggests that training time spent doing low-cadence strength-type workouts is time well spent. In a nutshell, they found that low-cadence workouts at LT power had a greater impact on improvement of work at LT than higher cadence work at the same workload.

Conclusion:  "Pedaling rate and the corresponding pedal force and peripheral oxygenation during cycling exercise influence the effect of training at LT on WorkLT. Two weeks of training at a low-frequency pedaling rate (35 rpm), but not at a high-frequency (75 rpm), improved WorkLT."

Unfortunately, the study used untrained individuals and tested cadences that could all be considered low. Also, a longer study period (only 2 weeks?) would have been much better. Arguably, the improvements measured might be attributable entirely to enhanced neuromuscular function that was stimulated more effectively at the higher pedal forces.

Nonetheless, the discussion of how cadence impacts VO2, blood pressure, heart rate, blood lactate, and oxy-hemoglobin/myoglobin concentration at the vastus lateralis is interesting and seems to make sense.

Obviously, this training technique can be taken too far and there is probably some increased risk of injury. However, two factors suggest that the risk of injury is not unreasonable:

1. generally, on-the-bike low-cadence work results in lower pedal force, and therefore joint stress, than strength exercises in the gym
2. generally, the workouts incorporating low-cadence work, do not result in greater pedal forces than you'll experience during maximal efforts at more typical cadences (sprints, intervals, race efforts)

I would suggest that increased injury risk comes from "overdoing" these workouts in some way.

Of course, there are some studies out there that conclude the opposite or at least find less benefit attributable to this technique.

One such study, Low cadence interval training at moderate intensity does not improve cycling performance in highly trained veteran cyclists (2014), concluded the opposite. I have a hard time buying the conclusion of this study though. Partially because I have some bias or belief that it works, but also because there is no logical reason why it wouldn't at least work just as well as higher cadence efforts at the same workload. Or in other words, how could applying the same central load (aerobic workload) and greater peripheral load (required muscular force), result in diminished improvement? It seems like the authors found that 1+0=2 and 1+1=1. There are some issues with the methodology employed that could have contributed to the result. However, the result still should be considered in evaluating all the evidence.

In any case, these two studies illustrate the difficulties associated with looking at studies of training techniques done in the laboratory for the purpose of publishing an article and trying to translate them into real world training methodologies. On the one hand, the real world is much more complicated. But, at the same time, we are able to apply techniques over a more realistic time period and to our exact set of variables.

Bottom line? In my opinion, formed from personal and coaching experience, and finding support in the scientific literature, this type of work will benefit your riding if done "properly".

Happy Holidays!

Protein timing....pfft.

A recent Bicycling article claims that "[c]onsuming protein and after rides can help stave off muscle loss". The article even references a study published in Sports Medicine as support. Unfortunately, there is no link to the study itself so it is difficult to comment on the specific support claimed by the author. However, a quick search of recent scholarly articles across multiple journals tends to conclude the opposite. 

A recent meta-analysis in the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition concludes that their study "refute[s] the commonly held belief that the timing of protein intake in and around a training session is critical to muscular adaptations and indicate that consuming adequate protein in combination with resistance exercise is the key factor for maximizing muscle protein accretion." See http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1550-2783-9-54  A 2009 study concludes:  Results indicate that the time of protein-supplement ingestion in resistance-trained athletes during a 10-wk training program does not provide any added benefit to strength, power, or body-composition changes. See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19478342

Of course, protein intake is important. You should be ingesting at least 0.8g protein per kilogram of body weight per day. This is a global consensus figure for the adequate amount to satisfy the protein needs of a healthy adult. There is less agreement as to whether athletes require more protein, and if so, how much. There are negative effects associated with excessive protein consumption (and counter-examples as well), so "more is better and can't hurt" probably doesn't apply. Also, if you are at all concerned about body weight, excessive protein ingestion could contribute to weight gain (assuming you continue to consume the same amount of fat and carbohydrates). Also notable, studies indicate that female athletes tend to under-consume protein as compared to men.

The bottom line, 1.2g/kg/d to 1.6g/kg/d is probably a reasonable range for most training cyclists. Adjust your diet to this range and then stop thinking about it. 

As always, caveat lector.

Wrapping up 2014

2014 is almost done. Things have been going well, except for posting to this blog!

Here's a few highlights:

Go Buffs!

I am now the Head Coach for the University of Colorado Boulder Cycling Team and coach all disciplines:  Road, Track, MTB, and Cyclocross. It was quite an adventure this fall working with the MTB team. I had to learn a lot new faces and get a handle on the gravity discipline. I had a lot of fun and made some strides towards "professionalizing" or "varsity-izing" the program. This was a learning season for me with MTB, but now I feel like I have a good handle on things.

The team had a great season winning both the RMCCC Team Title (conference) and National Team Title. We're the first "club team" to win a national team omnium in the last five years in either division and in any discipline! Kind of a big deal, that's 46 consecutive national team omniums (or is it omnia?) won by varsity teams.

Rapha Gentlemen's Race

I was lucky enough to get included on a team for the Rapha Gentlemen's Race in August. I rode with the Boulder Cycle Sport Team and it was a fun, long day on the bike:  104 miles, 13,000+ft of climbing. Good times! More...

Other than that its been a lot of the same:  riding, coaching, living the dream in Boulder, CO.

Looking forward to 2015!

Road Season starting up!

Here we go!

Amy Charity is starting her season in El Salvador this week with 3 one-day races and the Vuelta El Salvador (6-day stage race).

The University of Colorado (Go Buffs!) road team is also starting up this weekend with a criterium at Denver University.

Boulder Cycle Sport

One new development is that I will be the Road Ambassador / Team Leader for the Boulder Cycle Sport Racing Team. Team BCS is best known for its commitment to cyclocross. In 2014, the goal is to apply this very successful model to the road and MTB. Pete Webber will be leading the MTB team.

For more info check out:  http://www.bouldercyclesport.com/join-race-team/

We will be having a kick off meeting in mid-March, look forward to seeing you there!

Back on track for 2014

Lot's of changes since last post...

I am no longer working at FasCat Coaching, however, I continue to coach full-time as my own entity: Winkler Cycling. I enjoyed my time at FasCat and working with all my athletes, but I needed to make a few changes. I have a much clearer idea about my strengths as a coach and what "kind" of coach I want to be. Also, I needed a little free time to tackle a few side projects.

In 2014, I am committed to keep this blog current with posts related to coaching and bicycle racing. I'll probably minimize postings about my own training and racing. However, I will have to post a race report on Dirty Kanza this year. That should be quite the adventure!

Big Boulder CX Weekend

This past weekend was the big race weekend of the season in Boulder with 2 UCI races. Saturday was the Colorado Cross Classic at the Boulder Reservoir and Sunday was the Boulder Cup at Valmont Bike Park.

We had over 5 inches of snow on Wed/Thu so there was some moisture to deal with as the snow melted on Friday. Saturday had some mud, but Sunday was mostly dry.

I've been training pretty hard and took two days off before the weekend. This left me a little flat on Saturday and the result showed it. I decided to race these two races as 35+ instead of 45+. The level of competition in 45+ is solid, but 35+ is a couple notches up and probably deeper. The field was stacked as any 35+ guys wanting to ride Worlds avoided the UCI race.

The short story was that I was not ready to be as aggressive as necessary off the start and ended up way back after the first 2 turns. I also had some trouble with mud buildup on my shoes and a couple slow remounts on the first lap put me even further back. I was way off the front of the race, and I just tried to get into a hard rhythm and hope to move up over the course of the race. I felt like I was working hard enough, but I didn't seem to be making too much progress towards the front. I guess I picked off a few guys here and there because I eventually made it up to 10th by the end. Not too bad, but I couldn't help but think I should have done better.

The big sand pit at the Colorado Cross Classic

Sunday was better. It was basically the same field with the absence of Brandon Dwight and Russell Stevenson (1st & 2nd from Saturday). There was still plenty of depth int he field though!

I ended up getting a better start, but still got pushed back in the first sand pit because of some poor riding by others. I don't like to complain about other riders, but it just doesn't make any sense to me. Too many guys try to cram into bad lines and create massive congestion. This really doesn't help anyone's cause. It is much better to just stay single-file on the best line. This way everyone stays connected to the leaders and you can move up as gaps start to open in the line. Its just like on the road where everyone rides the gutter in crosswinds instead of forming echelons. I suppose its useless to complain, it will probably never change.

Finally things started to shuffle out and I started moving up. I made my best progress on the hill, but seemed to be leap-frogging riders all the way around. Finally, I was looking good, riding with some good names in the top 6. By the stairs on the last lap I actually made it up to 2nd place's wheel. However, I then proceeded to make a few mistakes, including a fall, which slipped me back to 4th place.

I'm satisfied. Need to keep the nose to the grindstone for the next 2 months and continue to build toward Nationals and Worlds.