Racebound

The method behind the plan

Racebound plans by a rule set drawn from training research and coaching practice, recalculates after every ride and aligns every week with one goal: the best possible performance on race day.

With references

Planned back from race day

The starting point is the race date. Base, build, specific phase and taper follow one another, each with its own purpose. Three loading weeks are followed by a recovery week in which the body adapts to the training.

  • Base: aerobic base and volume
  • Build: threshold and VO2max
  • Specific: demands of the race
  • Taper: shed fatigue, build form
Plan calculated by Racebound: 10 h per week, 24 weeks to the Ötztaler. Lighter bars are recovery weeks.

Intensity by available time

The share of easy, moderate and hard sessions depends on the available training time. With little time, Racebound plans more threshold and sweet spot; with more time, more easy endurance and targeted hard intervals.

5 h a week

72%
20%
8%

10 h a week

81%
12%

15 h a week

85%
9%
Target distribution in the build phase, from the engine:EasyMediumHard

Specific to the race

From the prediction for the course, the plan knows the demands: the duration of the longest climb, the total race time and the point from which fatigue builds. The sessions of the specific phase are derived from these.

  • High tempo: long blocks at 85–90 % of FTP, as long as the longest climb of the course, at most 30 minutes
  • Intervals after two to three hours: power under fatigue
  • Fuelling practice: step by step up to 60 to 90 g of carbohydrate per hour
  • Dress rehearsal: for long races once up to 8 hours, about four weeks before
“High tempo” for the Ötztaler, built from 2:10 h on the Timmelsjoch

Fuelling on race day

For race day, Racebound works out how much carbohydrate makes sense in which stretch of the course and turns it into bottles and gels. It is based on the predicted times and the planned power of each stretch.

Ötztaler Radmarathon, example rider with 250 W
Bottlesalternating with water
  1. to the KühtaiDescent from 0:0070 g100 g/h
  2. KühtaiClimb from 0:4495 g65 g/h
  3. to the BrennerDescent from 2:1585 g105 g/h
  4. BrennerClimb from 3:02115 g75 g/h
  5. to the JaufenpassDescent from 4:3845 g100 g/h
  6. JaufenpassClimb from 5:0390 g65 g/h
  7. to the TimmelsjochDescent from 6:2645 g120 g/h
  8. TimmelsjochClimb from 6:50180 g70 g/h
  9. to the finishDescent from 9:1970 g105 g/h

Total: 5 carbohydrate and 5 water bottles, 12 gels, 780 g, about 78 g per hour

Carbohydrate: 500 ml with 60 gWaterGel: 40 g

80 g per hour on average: less on the hard climbs, more on descents, flat parts and easy climbs. About one bottle an hour, carbohydrate and water in turns, the rest from gels. Gut tolerance is trained on the long rides of the plan. Bottles and gels are restocked at the aid stations.

Taper to race day

In the final days, volume drops step by step while intensity stays. Racebound calculates the taper so that form on race day is in the fresh range, adjusting its length by up to two days.

less volume
25 to 60 %
Intensity
stays
Form on race day
+7 to +20 %

Recalculated daily

After every ride, Racebound compares planned and completed training and recalculates the following days. Every change comes with a reason.

See an example
Whenthen
A session is missedThe key session moves to a free day, without two hard days in a row.
Intervals hit twiceThe next session of that kind gets one step harder.
A ride was too hardNo key session today and tomorrow.
Questionnaire below the personal baselineEndurance only today, the key session comes later in the week.
IllRest, then two easy days.
Very high fatigueNo key session today and tomorrow.

Launching January 2027

The finish time calculator for the races in the catalogue is already available.

Join the waiting listCalculate finish time

Sources

The rule set marks each rule as study, coaching practice or own decision. This page draws on the following studies and books.

  1. 1Issurin VB (2010). New horizons for the methodology and physiology of training periodization. Sports Med. 40(3):189–206. DOI 10.2165/11319770-000000000-00000
  2. 2Friel J (2018). The Cyclist's Training Bible, 5th ed.. VeloPress.
  3. 3Meeusen R, Duclos M, Foster C, et al. (2013). Prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of the overtraining syndrome: joint consensus statement of the ECSS and the ACSM. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 45(1):186–205. DOI 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318279a10a
  4. 4Seiler S (2010). What is best practice for training intensity and duration distribution in endurance athletes?. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 5(3):276–91. DOI 10.1123/ijspp.5.3.276
  5. 5Stöggl TL, Sperlich B (2015). The training intensity distribution among well-trained and elite endurance athletes. Front Physiol. 6:295. DOI 10.3389/fphys.2015.00295
  6. 6Neal CM, Hunter AM, Brennan L, et al. (2013). Six weeks of a polarized training-intensity distribution leads to greater physiological and performance adaptations than a threshold model in trained cyclists. J Appl Physiol. 114(4):461–71. DOI 10.1152/japplphysiol.00652.2012
  7. 7Stöggl T, Sperlich B (2014). Polarized training has greater impact on key endurance variables than threshold, high intensity, or high volume training. Front Physiol. 5:33. DOI 10.3389/fphys.2014.00033
  8. 8Rosenblat MA, Perrotta AS, Vicenzino B (2019). Polarized vs. threshold training intensity distribution on endurance sport performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Strength Cond Res. 33(12):3491–3500. DOI 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002618
  9. 9Rosenblat MA, Watt JA, Arnold JI, et al. (2025). Which training intensity distribution intervention will produce the greatest improvements in maximal oxygen uptake and time-trial performance in endurance athletes?. Sports Med. 55(3):655–673. DOI 10.1007/s40279-024-02149-3
  10. 10Filipas L, Bonato M, Gallo G, Codella R (2022). Effects of 16 weeks of pyramidal and polarized training intensity distributions in well-trained endurance runners. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 32(3):498–511. DOI 10.1111/sms.14101
  11. 11Maunder E, Seiler S, Mildenhall MJ, Kilding AE, Plews DJ (2021). The importance of 'durability' in the physiological profiling of endurance athletes. Sports Med. 51(8):1619–1628. DOI 10.1007/s40279-021-01459-0
  12. 12Jeukendrup A (2014). A step towards personalized sports nutrition: carbohydrate intake during exercise. Sports Med. 44(Suppl 1):S25–33. DOI 10.1007/s40279-014-0148-z
  13. 13Jeukendrup AE (2017). Training the gut for athletes. Sports Med. 47(Suppl 1):101–110. DOI 10.1007/s40279-017-0690-6
  14. 14Bosquet L, Montpetit J, Arvisais D, Mujika I (2007). Effects of tapering on performance: a meta-analysis. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 39(8):1358–65. DOI 10.1249/mss.0b013e31806010e0
  15. 15Mujika I, Padilla S (2003). Scientific bases for precompetition tapering strategies. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 35(7):1182–7. DOI 10.1249/01.MSS.0000074448.73931.11
  16. 16Saw AE, Main LC, Gastin PB (2016). Monitoring the athlete training response: subjective self-reported measures trump commonly used objective measures: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 50(5):281–91. DOI 10.1136/bjsports-2015-094758
  17. 17Banister EW, Calvert TW, Savage MV, Bach T (1975). A systems model of training for athletic performance. Aust J Sports Med. 7:57–61.
  18. 18Allen H, Coggan AR, McGregor SJ (2019). Training and Racing with a Power Meter, 3rd ed.. VeloPress.