Navigation
Vol. 14 №1 (2026)

Article

MODEL OF FUNCTIONING OF A RESERVE ATHLETE AS A BASIS FOR DIGITAL MANAGEMENT OF THE TRAINING PROCESS IN ROAD CYCLING (0.71 Mb, pdf) Read
Authors:
Kubeev Aleksandr Vladimirovich
Gorbunov Evgenii Dmitrievich
Cherkashin Vitalii Petrovich
Savenkova Elena Alekseevna
Alyakritskii Vladimir Lvovich
Keywords:
digital management
systemic model
training load
road cycling
sports reserve
PSSR
monitoring
plan–fact comparison
deviation criticality
gradient
G–t–v
Annotation:

Purpose of the study – to develop and present a systemic model of athlete functioning as a basis for digital management of the training process in road cycling; to formulate criteria of minimal sufficiency for the core set of training load indicators and, on this basis, to substantiate the selection of the G–t–v triad for the «plan–fact–decision» control loop (a detailed justification is presented in [2]).

Methods: The study employed systems analysis and structural-functional modeling of the managed object («athlete»), theoretical analysis of regulatory and methodological approaches to prescribing and controlling training load, and generalization of practical experience in scientific and methodological support of the preparation of sports reserve athletes (PSSR), where sports reserve refers to athletes within the regional talent-development system forming future regional and national teams. As observable characteristics of physical work, the indicators t (time), v (speed), and G (gradient/terrain difficulty) were used, forming a three-parameter representation of training load in the G–t–v format.

Results: A systemic model of athlete functioning as an object of digital management (inputs, states, outputs, and constraints) was proposed. It was shown that G–t–v constitutes a minimally sufficient core for digital control and «plan–fact» comparison in road cycling: t and v ensure observability, while inclusion of G eliminates the methodological incompleteness of a two-parameter (t–v) description in a terrain-based discipline and improves the correctness of managerial interpretation. A control loop was specified: planning → fact registration → plan–fact comparison → assessment of deviation criticality → managerial decision → registration of the coach’s managerial action → execution control. This loop transforms control and data registration from a «collection–storage» mode into a reproducible cycle of preparation and implementation of managerial action. After training (n=12), preparation of an individual physical training program (IPTP) for a given athlete profile required a median time of 2-3 minutes.

Conclusion: The proposed model and control loop, based on the G–t–v core, are applicable to the development of automated monitoring systems and to improving the scientific and methodological support of PSSR under conditions of limited measurement infrastructure, ensuring standardized «plan–fact» comparison and assessment of deviation criticality without reducing the quality of managerial decisions.

Bibliography:
  1. Prikaz Minsporta Rossii ot 30.11.2022 No. 1099 «Ob utverzhdenii federal'nogo standarta sportivnoi podgotovki po vidu sporta «velosipednyi sport»» [Order of the Ministry of Sport of Russia of 30 November 2022 No. 1099 «On approval of the Federal standard of sports training in the sport ‘Cycling’»]: registered with the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation on 19 December 2022 No. 71658. Available at: publication.pravo.gov.ru (accessed 30 January 2026). (In Russ.).
  2. Gorbunov E.D., Cherkashin V.P., Savenkova E.A., et al. Formirovanie struktury i soderzhaniya sovremennoi sistemy podgotovki sportsmenov vysokoi kvalifikatsii v dlitel’nykh lokomotsiyakh velosipednogo sporta. Moscow: Kanzler; 2025. 188 p. (In Russ.)
  3. Allen H., Coggan A.R. Training and Racing with a Power Meter. 2nd ed. Boulder (CO): VeloPress; 2010. ISBN 978-1-934030-55-4.
  4. Borkowski R, Krzepota J, Wróbel M, Madej D, Błażkiewicz M. The Impact of Overtraining on Injury Rates in School-Age Athletes–A Scoping Review. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2025;14(13):4712. doi:10.3390/jcm14134712. 
  5. Bouillod A, Soto-Romero G, Grappe F, Bertucci W, Brunet E, Cassirame J. Caveats and Recommendations to Assess the Validity and Reliability of Cycling Power Meters: A Systematic Scoping Review. Sensors. 2022;22(1):386. doi:10.3390/s22010386. 
  6. Costa VP, Borszcz FK, Tramontin AF, Bossi AH, Carminatti LJ. Functional threshold power in cyclists: validity of the concept and physiological responses. Journal of Science and Cycling. 2018;6(3):41-42. 
  7. Coyne JOC, Haff GG, Coutts AJ, Newton RU. The Current State of Subjective Training Load Monitoring: Follow-Up and Future Directions. Sports Medicine – Open. 2022;8:43. doi:10.1186/s40798-022-00433-y. 
  8. Dausin C, Ruiz-Carmona S, De Bosscher R, et al. Semiautomatic Training Load Determination in Endurance Athletes. Journal for the Measurement of Physical Behaviour. 2023;6(3):193-201. doi:10.1123/jmpb.2023-0016. 
  9. Gallo G, Bosio A, Martin M, et al. Relationships between training dose and record power outputs in professional road cyclists: insights and threats to validity. Biology of Sport. 2023;40(2):485-495. doi:10.5114/biolsport.2023.114284. 
  10. Inoue A, dos Santos Bunn P, do Carmo EC, et al. Internal Training Load Perceived by Athletes and Planned by Coaches: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Medicine – Open. 2022;8:35. doi:10.1186/s40798-022-00420-3. 
  11. Jeffries AC, Marcora SM, Coutts AJ, Wallace L, McCall A, Impellizzeri FM. Development of a Revised Conceptual Framework of Physical Training for Use in Research and Practice. Sports Medicine. 2022;52(4):709-724. doi:10.1007/s40279-021-01551-5. 
  12. Macedo AG, Almeida TAF, et al. Load Monitoring Methods for Controlling Training Effectiveness on Physical Conditioning and Planning Involvement: A Narrative Review. Applied Sciences. 2024;14(22):10465. doi:10.3390/app142210465. 
  13. Passfield L, Murias JM, Sacchetti M, Nicolò A. Validity of the Training-Load Concept in Endurance Sport. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. 2022;17(4):507-511. doi:10.1123/ijspp.2021-0536.
  14. Peeters WM, Barrett M, Podlogar T. What is a cycling race simulation anyway: a review on protocols to assess durability in cycling. European Journal of Applied Physiology. 2025. doi:10.1007/s00421-025-05725-1. 
  15. Sierra-Casas A, Rodríguez-Marroyo JA, Castillo D, et al. From Load Monitoring to Training Decisions: A Practical Approach Using Drop Jump Metrics in Semi-Professional Soccer. Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2025;17:301. doi:10.1186/s13102-025-01356-3. 
  16. Söker N, et al. Long-term Athlete Development in Schools: A Systematic Review. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living. 2025;7:1706060. doi:10.3389/fspor.2025.1706060. 
  17. Staes FF, et al. Challenges and Opportunities for Injury Reduction and Performance Development in Elite Youth Team Sport Schools: A Practice-Based Opinion. International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy. 2025;20(10):1547-1556. doi:10.26603/001c.144053. 
  18. Timmerman WP, Abbiss CR, Lawler NG, Stanley M, Raynor AJ. Athlete Monitoring Perspectives of Sports Coaches and Support Staff: A Scoping Review. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching. 2024;19(4):1813-1832. doi:10.1177/17479541241247131.
  19. Valenzuela PL, et al. Road Gradient and Cycling Power: An Observational Study in Male Professional Cyclists. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. 2022;25(12):1017-1022. doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2022.10.001. 
  20. Voet JG, van Erp T, Viribay A, de Koning JJ, Lamberts RP. Training Characteristics Related to (the Changes in) Durability in Semiprofessional Cyclists. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. 2025;20(5):644-652. doi:10.1123/ijspp.2024-0321. 

See also