Tadej Pogacar and Mauro Giannetti

[Rotted Melon]

...this all changed some time around 2020 and now we are seeing what humans are really capable of doing (probably even more than this but it is a good trajectory)...

Yeah, we got them big pulley wheels on rear derailleurs, ceramic bearings, and chain lubes made from graphene that all save watts. Watts man! WATTS!

The guys in the 90's and 00's were just as dead serious about training and how they lived back then as now. There's just more money and watt saving technology now (like inboard motors). WATTS!

 

[orbifold]

How is it possible that Pogacar is performing ten times worse here than, for example, in the Tour... mechanical doping. He looks 100 times more tired than after a tough Tour stage or a Monument. Ridiculous.

Romandie is an early Asian criterium, fake climbs, fake sprints. Mauro had promised the race organizers that one day he would bring Tadej. Zone 0-1 till the end and everyone is happy. He was constantly looking at the power meter not to accidentally drop the other 3 riders.

 

[Divergence]

What makes you think the sport was not professional prior to 2020? Marginal gains where already part of the sport. The major change was rider quality. WVA and MVDP coming from CX and talented youngsters like Evenepoel and Pogacar skipping the ranks and going directly to the Pro peleton. That influx of young talent had an impact. Nevertheless it doesn't explain the more recent crazy performances. La Redoute for example was just absurd. About 9 w/kg on a 4 min climb after almost 6 hours racing at 44 km/h is defying standard human biology. He should almost drop of the bike due to acid build up in his body! In contrast, his face shows nothing and he seems fully recovered immediately. So either the acid is neutralized using an illegal substance (most likely) or he uses a motor.

I do no think you eve read my post. I clearly wrote what they were doing and it is not optimal at all.

Operation Aderlass - examples of riders who were not caught by the passport:

Stefan Denifl - confessed to blood doping. No passport violation throughout his career.

Georg Preidler - admitted blood doping. No passport violation throughout his career.

Danilo Hondo - admitted to blood doping in (at least) 2011. No passport violation throughout his career.

Alessandro Petacchi - two-year ban. No passport violation throughout his career.

Kristijan Koren - two-year ban. No passport violation throughout his career.

Kristijan Đurasek - four-year ban. No passport violation throughout his career.

Borut Božič - two-year ban. No passport violation throughout his career.

Pirmin Lang - admitted blood doping. No passport violation throughout his career.

Björn Thurau - long ban. No passport violation throughout his career.


Conclusion - blood doping is still relevant. Even 'lesser' riders can use transfusions without getting caught.

I am not saying the the passport is a great solution. I am saying that if you are blood doping with EPO or injecting testosterone like they were doing in the 90s you are going to get caught now. If you are micordosing (smaller quantities, smaller effects) maybe you can circumvent the system.

Yeah, we got them big pulley wheels on rear derailleurs, ceramic bearings, and chain lubes made from graphene that all save watts. Watts man! WATTS!

The guys in the 90's and 00's were just as dead serious about training and how they lived back then as now. There's just more money and watt saving technology now (like inboard motors). WATTS!

Sure the bikes are better now, but the training is way better. I am quite sure of that.
Also, they are to using motors in the pro peloton.

 

[meat puppet]

The training argument should be better specified IMHO.

What changed exactly, and what are the expected positive changes in key physiological variables?

I for one believe that training evolves and this is driven by competition, individualisation and experimentation. This will have positive performance effects. But improvements in this domain are very often overstated. Arguments are also often wildly anecdotal. Sometimes they highlight particular coaches such as Sola now and Kerrison back in the days, as though there are some secrets.

At least in running the so-called double threshold method that is supposedly behind improved performance is discussed very explicitly and openly. Yet it comes down to very simple, logical and time-tested principles: maximisise load in a manner that is sustainable and specific enough to competition needs. Innovators started to tinker around this model in the 90s already, mind.

So quite often a sort of simple past fallacy is deployed. Athletes were not clueless yesteryear.

Re: Pog there has been a claim that he previously did not do "long intervals" and, exaggerating only slightly, including them has been the key. Assuming this was the case, I would find this a positive change, particularly in relation to GT performance. But I'm not buying that his performance jump could possibly have hinged on this. Threshold can be built with Z2 volume too. Allegedly that was his thing previously.

More generally, what I am skeptical of is that improved training could explain how roughly 6w/kg became roughly/almost 7w/kg in GT climbs. How seasoned top professionals made this jump after COVID-19 and 2023-24 in particular remains the puzzle at hand.

 

[Divergence]

The training argument should be better specified IMHO.

What changed exactly, and what are the expected positive changes in key physiological variables?

I for one believe that training evolves and this is driven by competition, individualisation and experimentation. This will have positive performance effects. But improvements in this domain are very often overstated. Arguments are also often wildly anecdotal. Sometimes they highlight particular coaches such as Sola now and Kerrison back in the days, as though there are some secrets.

At least in running the so-called double threshold method that is supposedly behind improved performance is discussed very explicitly and openly. Yet it comes down to very simple, logical and time-tested principles: maximisise load in a manner that is sustainable and specific enough to competition needs. Innovators started to tinker around this model in the 90s already, mind.

So quite often a sort of simple past fallacy is deployed. Athletes were not clueless yesteryear.

Re: Pog there has been a claim that he previously did not do "long intervals" and, exaggerating only slightly, including them has been the key. Assuming this was the case, I would find this a positive change, particularly in relation to GT performance. But I'm not buying that his performance jump could possibly have hinged on this. Threshold can be built with Z2 volume too. Allegedly that was his thing previously.

More generally, what I am skeptical of is that improved training could explain how roughly 6w/kg became roughly/almost 7w/kg in GT climbs. How seasoned top professionals made this jump after COVID-19 and 2023-24 in particular remains the puzzle at hand.

I believe I gave a few specific examples but I will try to make it clearer. The top riders nowadays are training a lot and very hard and always with ample of energy. I have to stress that this is true only for the best of the best (for example Rog lost some motivation to train and it is immediately obvious that he cannot cope with the best). Previously there might have been some riders who think they trained hard because it felt hard but, for what I gather they were always training whilst not consuming enough energy. That is why I wrote the anecdote about G. Riding around at 240W is garbage, coffee rides are garbage. You need to eat and train hard every day and that is what appears to me that Pog is doing and maybe just a few other riders. It is also very hard to live like this and do it throughout the year, something that Pog does. People used to train hard (but not really) only for a couple of months before a big objective.
I understand I do not have hard data to present all of this in the most structured way but that is what I believe drives the ever better performances we are witnessing.

 

[BubbaChuck]

Extra 600g of carbs/stage = Higher glycogen availability = +0.5 to 0.8 W/kg on the final climb. Thats not the whole story,but if we are talking in vacuum comparing last climb in gts.difference should be roughly 10% on last climb between the eras. We could test this easilly,lets pogacar or seixas take only half of carbs and see what happens.

 

[BubbaChuck]

And regarding hard training,my prediction is that big volume is only returning to pro cycling after decades of train less,but smarter.Itsnot pogacar that is really leading this trend,but seixas. Staying months on altitude,doing 350 rides,possibly even more races is gonna come back.Just wait to see,what paul is gonna push in couple of years.

 

[Divergence]

And regarding hard training,my prediction is that big volume is only returning to pro cycling after decades of train less,but smarter.Itsnot pogacar that is really leading this trend,but seixas. Staying months on altitude,doing 350 rides,possibly even more races is gonna come back.Just wait to see,what paul is gonna push in couple of years.

I think train smarter still holds. The caveat is that one need to both train smart and a lot . And that is hard work.

 

[BubbaChuck]

If we look at what seixas did during those 2 months,couple of numbers. Probably 160-220 hours on bike, rode 4500-5000 km and climbed over 100 k meters,thats like riding with bike on everest 11 times.

 

[Krzysztof_O]

I'm not gonna say motors, but I've always thought that whatever it is they were on is short acting, and taking the day before or the morning of.

I've based it on the miraculous turnarounds and sometimes crazy results in stages where riders probably didn't expect to need to maximize their dose.

But what (besides motors) could act so quickly? Stuff like EPO and CO require some physiological response time. Maybe BBs?

 

[Red Rick]

But what (besides motors) could act so quickly? Stuff like EPO and CO require some physiological response time. Maybe BBs?

How would i know.

I'm also not dismissing long acting stuff, or stuff being used outside of races to increase training load. If anything I'd expect Pogacar to also be megadosing the off race stuff to explain why the training load and endurance can be so high.

But the most hilarious examples for the short-acting theory are Rohand Dennis (and Ineos in general) in the 2020 Giro and Brandon McNulty in the 2022 TdF.

 

[Divergence]

How would i know.

I'm also not dismissing long acting stuff, or stuff being used outside of races to increase training load. If anything I'd expect Pogacar to also be megadosing the off race stuff to explain why the training load and endurance can be so high.

But the most hilarious examples for the short-acting theory are Rohand Dennis (and Ineos in general) in the 2020 Giro and Brandon McNulty in the 2022 TdF.

Dennis was pretty ridiculous but he was good for a couple of years at least.
The most egregious case has to be Mark Padun. What was that?

 

[Krzysztof_O]

I'm also not dismissing long acting stuff, or stuff being used outside of races to increase training load. If anything I'd expect Pogacar to also be megadosing the off race stuff to explain why the training load and endurance can be so high.

Yes, base training with sky-high VO2max should help with elevating Z2 and Z3 to sick levels as well.

 

[Red Rick]

Dennis was pretty ridiculous but he was good for a couple of years at least.
The most egregious case has to be Mark Padun. What was that?

Seriosuly Padun winning an HC MTF by a pretty regular gap (tailwind too I'm pretty sure) and winning a stage from a breakaway with a fairly normal climbing suddenly being treated like the single most suss thing ever (while Pogacar gaining 3 minutes in the first mountain stage 3 weeks later was completely normal) just feels like a psyop to me.

 

[Divergence]

Seriosuly Padun winning an HC MTF by a pretty regular gap (tailwind too I'm pretty sure) and winning a stage from a breakaway with a fairly normal climbing suddenly being treated like the single most suss thing ever (while Pogacar gaining 3 minutes in the first mountain stage 3 weeks later was completely normal) just feels like a psyop to me.

Dude never did anything before or after that. That is the sus part. But, who knows...

 

[Netserk]

But what (besides motors) could act so quickly? Stuff like EPO and CO require some physiological response time. Maybe BBs?

bb and hboc

 

[Tim Cahill]

The spectacle of Mcnulty and Bjerg was exacerbated by them getting immediately dropped in the breakaway stage of the race the day after, unable to even stay in the bunch.

For years after Mcnulty's nickname in the Ineos team was 'Pantani' because of his antics, he'd spent 150k in the break the day before, finishing 6 minutes down from a flying Hugo Houle.

With blood bags you would expect the effect to last a bit longer.

 

[SorelyBoy]

The training argument should be better specified IMHO.

What changed exactly, and what are the expected positive changes in key physiological variables?

I for one believe that training evolves and this is driven by competition, individualisation and experimentation. This will have positive performance effects. But improvements in this domain are very often overstated. Arguments are also often wildly anecdotal. Sometimes they highlight particular coaches such as Sola now and Kerrison back in the days, as though there are some secrets.

At least in running the so-called double threshold method that is supposedly behind improved performance is discussed very explicitly and openly. Yet it comes down to very simple, logical and time-tested principles: maximisise load in a manner that is sustainable and specific enough to competition needs. Innovators started to tinker around this model in the 90s already, mind.

So quite often a sort of simple past fallacy is deployed. Athletes were not clueless yesteryear.

Re: Pog there has been a claim that he previously did not do "long intervals" and, exaggerating only slightly, including them has been the key. Assuming this was the case, I would find this a positive change, particularly in relation to GT performance. But I'm not buying that his performance jump could possibly have hinged on this. Threshold can be built with Z2 volume too. Allegedly that was his thing previously.

More generally, what I am skeptical of is that improved training could explain how roughly 6w/kg became roughly/almost 7w/kg in GT climbs. How seasoned top professionals made this jump after COVID-19 and 2023-24 in particular remains the puzzle at hand.

It’s all marginal gains as regards training techniques and associated scientific methods (dietary science for example). Emphasis on the marginal. Increasingly marginal. The signal that performance levels are abnormal is when said performance levels are improving not marginally but rather by, relatively speaking, huge amounts. The difference can’t be explained by equipment alone, at least equipment that is regulation approved.
If then we rationalise that biological methods explain the delta remaining, we are left still trying to explain the huge gap between the best of the rest and Pogacar’s performance and indeed performance evolution/giant leap since 2023. Something is missing that would satisfactorily account for the difference. Thus it is reasonable to postulate a mechanical system is in use, at least sometimes.

 

[peterfin]

Thanks for taking the time to go deeper into this, appreciated.

If we assume an exceptional talent, combined with optimal training, recovery, nutrition and a perfectly optimized (and aggressive) chemical support program, it does seem that many classical “red flag” stress signals could be strongly muted. Lower acid load, better pH control, and improved oxygen delivery could, at least in theory, suppress the usual breathing panic and visible distress even at very high W/kg.

At the same time, sustained fat oxidation at those intensities is intrinsically oxygen expensive, so even with increased O₂ delivery per heartbeat, are physiological limits truly being removed, or just shifted to a different bottleneck?
And on heat management, if enhanced oxygen transport allows more blood flow to the skin without immediate power loss, is that a stable solution or a very narrow and fragile balance, especially late in long stages, on irregular terrain rather than controlled conditions?

I keep wondering whether even an extremely optimized human system would truly hide all downstream signs of strain. Metabolic, central, and neuromuscular fatigue don’t always break down in sync and biology has a habit of leaking through subtle cues as small cadence irregularities, uneven torque, or micro adjustments in posture when conditions stop being perfectly steady.

Great points. Regarding the "lack of strain," I'd argue it's mostly perception. Pogačar does experience strain, but because he might be operating at 95% of his limit while someone like Seixas is at 105%, he looks unstrained simply by comparison.

To your specific questions:

About the shifting bottleneck: You’re right, limits aren't removed, just shifted. If chemical support delays metabolic and cardiovascular failure, the new bottleneck becomes purely neuromuscular (muscle fibers and tendons failing from raw torque).

Regarding the heat balance: It’s a very fragile balance. That’s why you see them obsessively using ice and slushies right up to a final climb. If that thermal equilibrium tips, the system crashes violently (like his sudden crack on the Col de la Loze in 2023).

 

[Gianetti_Is_The_Goat]

I believe I gave a few specific examples but I will try to make it clearer. The top riders nowadays are training a lot and very hard and always with ample of energy. I have to stress that this is true only for the best of the best (for example Rog lost some motivation to train and it is immediately obvious that he cannot cope with the best). Previously there might have been some riders who think they trained hard because it felt hard but, for what I gather they were always training whilst not consuming enough energy. That is why I wrote the anecdote about G. Riding around at 240W is garbage, coffee rides are garbage. You need to eat and train hard every day and that is what appears to me that Pog is doing and maybe just a few other riders. It is also very hard to live like this and do it throughout the year, something that Pog does. People used to train hard (but not really) only for a couple of months before a big objective.
I understand I do not have hard data to present all of this in the most structured way but that is what I believe drives the ever better performances we are witnessing.

Sure.

'Tadej Pogačar won his first Tour de France eating pizza, drinking beer and playing Playstation' – Teammate sees big difference with Paul Seixas

Domen Novak echoes burnout concerns as young pros make precocious Pogačar seem old-fashioned

www.cyclingnews.com

 

[Gianetti_Is_The_Goat]

The biggest danger for Pogacar seems to be his refusal to leave anything for the competition.

 

[Abedfo]

His sociopathic greediness will be his downfall. Even Lance knew when to be chill.

 

[SorelyBoy]

I believe I gave a few specific examples but I will try to make it clearer. The top riders nowadays are training a lot and very hard and always with ample of energy. I have to stress that this is true only for the best of the best (for example Rog lost some motivation to train and it is immediately obvious that he cannot cope with the best). Previously there might have been some riders who think they trained hard because it felt hard but, for what I gather they were always training whilst not consuming enough energy. That is why I wrote the anecdote about G. Riding around at 240W is garbage, coffee rides are garbage. You need to eat and train hard every day and that is what appears to me that Pog is doing and maybe just a few other riders. It is also very hard to live like this and do it throughout the year, something that Pog does. People used to train hard (but not really) only for a couple of months before a big objective.
I understand I do not have hard data to present all of this in the most structured way but that is what I believe drives the ever better performances we are witnessing.

Yeah, ok. But…Your claim is built on a stack of assumptions that collapse the moment you compare them with what we actually know about elite cycling from the 1980s onward. If you will forgive me for saying so, it’s a classic case of presentism—imagining that people in the past were naïve, lazy, or ignorant simply because they didn’t have today’s tools. It’s a belief system, not an analysis. It’s the same mindset that assumes ancient people were stupid because they didn’t have smartphones. The argument is built on belief, not evidence. You even admit:

“I understand I do not have hard data… but that is what I believe.”

That’s the key. It’s a belief system, not an analysis. Let’s break it down a bit. The claim for example that “top riders didn’t train hard” is historically false. From the 1980s onward, we have extensive documentation—training diaries, interviews, lab tests, team archives—showing that top riders trained huge volumes and often at intensities that would break most amateurs. Examples:

• Hinault routinely did 30–35 hour weeks, massive tempo blocks, and brutal winter base miles.
• Induráin was doing 5–6 hour rides at high aerobic power, plus lab‑verified VO₂max work.
• Ullrich’s training logs show enormous volume and intensity, especially under Rudy Pevenage.
• Armstrong’s pre‑Tour blocks under Carmichael and Ferrari were famously extreme: long climbs at threshold, motorpacing, repeated maximal efforts.

These riders weren’t doing “coffee rides”. They were doing huge, structured, periodised work, often with sports scientists, physiologists, and coaches who were ahead of their time. So any idea that they “thought they trained hard but didn’t” is simply not compatible with the evidence.

The argument confuses energy availability with training knowledge. Yes, modern riders fuel more aggressively. However, the statement treats “not consuming enough energy” as if it were a revelation. In reality, when it did happen, it was a deliberate trade‑off in an era obsessed with power‑to‑weight.

The claim that Pogacar trains hard “all year” and others didn’t or don’t is a myth. The best riders still do huge volumes, just like the best riders always have. Likewise, the idea that Pogacar is the first rider to train hard year‑round is fantasy. Merckx, Hinault, Induráin, Armstrong, Contador—these were obsessive, year‑round workers. The difference is how they trained, not whether they trained. But let’s not think that the outputs deliver anything more than relatively marginal improvements.
Nor is there any evidence that Pogačar is uniquely disciplined compared to his rivals. Vingegaard spends months at altitude, Evenepoel is famously obsessive, Roglič built his career on monastic preparation, and the entire UAE, Visma, and Soudal ecosystems are built around relentless, year‑round training, as are all the top teams. Pogačar stands out in results, some might say talent (I have serious reservations about such claims), but not in work ethic.

You use a single anecdote (Geraint Thomas riding at 240W) as if it proves anything. This is a classic logical error in that:

• Anecdote ≠ evidence
• One rider’s easy ride ≠ historical training norms
• One power number ≠ a training philosophy

Geraint Thomas riding at 240W on a recovery day tells you nothing about:

• his threshold
• his training load
• his periodisation
• his race preparation

It’s like seeing a surgeon drinking tea and concluding surgeons don’t work hard.
The argument also assumes “training hard every day” is good training. This is another misunderstanding. Elite training in any sport is not about going hard every day. If you train hard every day, you don’t adapt—you burn out. The statement confuses effort with effectiveness.