BikeRadar’s cycling report points toward more personal altitude planning, training zones and fueling. Here is what active riders over 40 can take from it.
On September 23, 2026, BikeRadar reported on five developments presented at the 2026 Science and Cycling conference in Barcelona that could influence professional cycling in 2027. For you as an active cyclist over 40, the useful news is not simply a higher mountain camp or another training device. It is a more personal way to judge the work your body is doing.
The report connects altitude research with breathing measurements, menstrual-cycle analysis, breathing diagnoses and carbohydrate testing. Its common thread is relevant well beyond racing: understand your response before copying someone else’s numbers.
Across BikeRadar’s report, the same distinction appears repeatedly: a prescribed workload is different from an individual response. Altitude describes an exposure. Power describes work at the pedals. Neither alone captures how a particular rider is managing the demand.
Professor Carsten Lundby told BikeRadar that four weeks at 3,454 meters at Switzerland’s Jungfraujoch research station produced an average 40-gram increase in hemoglobin mass. He compared that with a 20-gram increase at more traditional altitudes.
Participants undertook daily hiking, resistance training and ergometer cycling. This was therefore research involving exercise at altitude rather than simply remaining inactive in a high location. The distinction matters when interpreting what a camp actually involved: its altitude was only part of the experience.
BikeRadar reports that Team Visma performance coach Espen Aareskjold described the team as fully embedded with Tymewear’s system during 2026. The chest-strap system measures breathing rate and tidal volume to calculate the total volume of air moved per minute. It uses ventilatory thresholds and VO₂ max to establish individualized training zones.
The underlying idea is straightforward: power measures external work while breathing offers another view of the body’s internal demand. BikeRadar cited a 2023 study involving exercise physiologist Dan Plews in which riders completed a two-hour ride at ventilatory threshold 1. Ventilation remained consistent while heart rate rose by 10% and power fell by 10%.
A steady target on a screen and a steady physiological workload are therefore not necessarily the same thing. That is the finding worth understanding before considering any new equipment.
Professor Rob Lamberts and colleagues compared trained female cyclists during the early-follicular and mid-luteal phases. According to BikeRadar, the protocol included time trials performed both fresh and fatigued, with a submaximal ride between them.
At group level, the researchers found no meaningful phase-related difference in power output, heart rate or cadence. Individual results varied considerably. Some riders produced more power in one phase while others favored the other phase or performed similarly in both.
The practical significance lies in the difference between a group average and a personal pattern. A calendar-based rule can miss what a particular athlete experiences.
BikeRadar also reported work by pulmonary specialist Professor James Hull. Among professional footballers previously diagnosed with exercise-induced asthma, more than half of those tested did not have asthma on subsequent gold-standard bronchoprovocation testing. That finding concerned footballers rather than a quantified sample of cyclists.
The cycling discussion focused on riders whose difficulty getting enough air might involve a breathing-pattern disorder. Hull described rapid breathing concentrated in the upper chest among some tested riders. His central message was diagnostic: an assumed explanation should not replace appropriate testing.
BikeRadar describes testing developed through Tim Podlogar and the fuelsync service. It uses carbon-13 stable isotopes and breath samples during a standardized ride to estimate how much externally consumed carbohydrate an athlete actually uses.
The intended result is an estimate of an individual’s upper carbohydrate-use limit. It is not an instruction to consume that amount on every ride. BikeRadar explicitly distinguishes the demands of hard riding from easy riding when discussing how such a result should be interpreted.
These findings come through a conference-based report rather than a systematic review or complete presentation of primary studies. BikeRadar does not supply full citations or participant numbers for every study discussed. Some technology claims draw on team experience or provider-linked information rather than independent validation. The report does not establish better outcomes for adults over 40 or show that these methods are standard throughout professional cycling.
Lundby described the response to altitude training as “highly individual” and stressed diligent monitoring. That short phrase captures the report’s most useful message: a demanding intervention is not automatically a well-matched intervention.
Lamberts’ interpretation similarly emphasized individual differences hidden within group results. Across the expert commentary, the direction is toward understanding the athlete more closely rather than finding a universal formula. For an experienced recreational cyclist, that is a more useful ambition than reproducing the most extreme professional practice.
For a rider planning a mountain cycling holiday, the immediate question is not which elite tool to copy. It is which personal uncertainty matters most: managing altitude, sustaining effort or matching food to the ride. Addressing one question at a time keeps this research useful without turning a holiday or training week into a laboratory project.
The report gives recreational cyclists a reason to examine altitude plans more carefully rather than seek a higher destination. A useful camp needs to make sense as a complete experience. Sleep, hydration, acclimatization and training quality belong in that assessment alongside the location’s height.
That distinction belongs at the center of planning a trip to altitude. The practical question is whether the itinerary supports riding and recovery, not whether its altitude resembles a research setting. Personal decisions about a demanding altitude camp are best discussed with qualified medical and exercise professionals.
The most accessible application of the breathing research is to compare existing signals rather than replace them. During comparable endurance rides, consider how power relates to heart rate, breathing comfort and perceived effort. Note when those signals stop telling the same story.
For example, maintaining a familiar power target while breathing becomes less comfortable is information worth recording. It does not require an immediate diagnosis or a new training zone. Looking at the pattern alongside your broader recovery trends keeps the focus on context rather than an isolated number.
If formal ventilatory testing would answer a specific training question, an appropriately qualified exercise professional can assess it. The point is to clarify effort rather than accumulate more measurements.
BikeRadar’s fueling discussion supports matching carbohydrate intake to the ride’s duration and intensity. Terrain and gastrointestinal tolerance also belong in that decision. An upper limit measured during testing is a different thing from a sensible target for an easy outing.
Keep that distinction within your wider preparation for riding away from home. Start with the demands of the planned ride rather than a professional rider’s reported intake. Personal nutrition decisions that require more precision belong with an appropriately qualified professional rather than a borrowed elite-sport number.
Persistent exercise-related breathlessness deserves clinical assessment rather than assumptions about fitness or an existing asthma label. The practical action is to seek appropriate evaluation before changing medication or starting respiratory retraining.
That keeps the decision focused on identifying the cause. A breathing sensor used for training zones and a clinical investigation of breathing difficulty answer different questions. More performance data should not be treated as a substitute for care.
The supported starting point is personal observation across several cycles. Compare symptoms and readiness with sleep, perceived exertion, recovery and performance before changing the training plan. The aim is to establish whether a repeatable pattern exists for you.
This is a narrower and more useful task than assigning every phase a predetermined training purpose. It also keeps the focus on how the rider actually feels and performs during ordinary training and demanding trips.
Keep a sustainable routine, but use your own responses to refine altitude plans, riding effort and fueling rather than importing professional cycling’s numbers.
Stay connected for research and practical guidance on longevity, strength, recovery, energy and active living. New ideas to help you stay capable, curious and ready for more.
Explore practical guidance on strength, recovery, energy, travel and longevity for a life that stays active.
explore the Blog
