Strength training for cyclists: push those pedals harder

Strength specificity

If athletes are going to add strength training in a program, a frequent question asked is “how can I get the greatest performance benefits from strength sessions without expending too much precious time and effort in those sessions?” This is a topic that we’ve also discussed at length in previous articles, where we have looked at research into aspects such as resistance type, set numbers and rest intervals, reps per set, strength training frequency etc. However, one important aspect of strength training that is often overlooked is ‘specificity’ – ie how closely the strength exercise being performed mimics the movement patterns that an athlete needs to perform in his or her sport.

The principle of training specificity suggests that for maximum fitness and performance gains, the type of training an athlete undertakes should replicate the movements/locomotion/pattern of muscle use required in his/her actual sport as closely as possible. This explains why runners need to perform running training (and not focus on other training modes such as cycling/rowing etc) to run well in competition. Likewise, cyclists should primarily cycle and swimmers primarily swim.

The principle of specificity also applies to some degree in strength training. While studies show that runners and cyclists can improve their muscle economy (as mentioned above) by performing heavy weight leg strength exercises such as squats and leg press, it is known that training specificity is still relevant. For example, research on swimmers has found that unless chosen very carefully, dry land strength exercises may not transfer well to performance gains in the water – most likely because unlike land resistance, the water itself moves when swimmers propel themselves resulting in a very different medium, and explaining why better results may be achieved when resisted swimming techniques are used (eg the use of paddles or swim parachutes) to help provide resistance to the stroke^(6,7).

Strength training specificity for cyclists

Given that strength training is widely accepted as being desirable or even essential for excellent cycling performance, and that training specificity is also a good thing, a question that arises is can cyclists benefit from very cycling-specific strength workouts – ie strength sessions performed on a bike? This question is relevant because (unlike runners), cyclists are able to train on a bike using a range of loadings thanks to gearing, and the use of stationary bikes, where loading can be generated externally. By increasing the loading and reducing the cadence (speed of crank rotation), it should be possible to generate high levels of resistance with movement speeds that are not too dissimilar to those employed during conventional weight training – but with a highly specific range of movement and muscle recruitment patterns, because the loading takes place while the pedals are being turned!

Low cadence training for strength

But can similar loadings to that used in conventional weight training be generated on the bike using low cadence/high friction modes? A very recent study by a team of Spanish scientists has looked into this question⁽⁸⁾. The researchers set out to measure the mechanic force demands (ie generated loading) in 11 cyclists at varying cycling intensities, and how these demands compared to the maximum dynamic force (MDF) that could be generated during activities such as full power resistance training. The different cycling intensities included ventilatory threshold (the intensity at which breathing rate suddenly increases), maximum lactate steady state (maximum sustainable pace), and maximal aerobic power (VO2max), different cadences (40, 60 and 80rpm), and during all-out resisted sprints.

As might be expected, the relative force demands (expressed as a % of MDF) progressively increased with higher intensities. What was surprising however was that none of the intensities came close to reproducing the maximum dynamic force figure. Even during resisted sprints and torque training (when a low-rpm, high gear is used to increase loading at the cranks), the forces generated only amounted to just over half (54%) of the MDF figure generated off the bike. These findings are consistent with those from a 2017 systematic review study on the use of low-cadence pedalling to increase leg strength and boost performance⁽⁹⁾. This study looked at the previous research on using low cadences (down to 40rpm) in order to generate high levels of resistance – ie a kind of ‘on-bike’ strengthening. It concluded that ‘there is presently no strong evidence for a benefit of training at low cadences’ and that ‘a number of the selected studies indicate no clear performance-enhancing effect of training at low cadence or even indicate a superior effect from training at freely chosen cadence’.

New research

To date, there’s little robust evidence that adding in sessions of low-cadence, high torque training brings about the kind of benefits that lower body heavy resistance training is known to produce. But is that an inherent characteristic of trying to develop leg strength using a bike or is it simply that the loadings generated on the bike during low-cadence, high-torque training just aren’t high enough? For some answers, we can turn to new research just published by another team of Spanish scientists⁽¹⁰⁾. Published in the journal Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, this study compared the effects of off- and on-bike resistance training on endurance cycling performance as well as muscle strength, power and structure.

Thirty seven well trained cyclists were recruited for the 10-week intervention study. Prior to undergoing training, the cyclists were assessed for a variety of key performance indicators, which included:

·        Maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max).

·        Off-bike muscle strength (measured by squat strength).

·        On-bike muscle strength (measured via pedaling force).

·        Peak power capacity (using the Wingate test).

·        Body composition (muscle/fat mass measured via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry).

·        Muscle structure and size (cross-sectional area).

Following these baseline tests, the cyclists were randomly divided into three groups for the next ten weeks:

·        Off-bike training - performing heavy squats twice per week as well as cycling training.

·        On-bike training - performing all-out pedaling efforts against very high resistances and thus at very low cadences, twice per week as well as cycling training.

·        Control group - where the cyclists did no off- or on-bike resistance training but only performed cycling training.

Importantly, the resistance work in the off- and on-bike groups was evenly matched, with the same number of sessions, sets, repetitions, duration of recovery periods, and relative loads (70% of one-repetition maximum) being performed regardless of the group. Following the 10-week training period, the cyclists from all three groups were retested to see how their baseline measures had changed.

What they found

The first finding was that there were no significant changes in VO2 max amongst the three groups – which is what you might expect as all three groups had continued their cycling training as normal and resistance training would not be expected to yield gains in aerobic capacity. When it came to squat strength and pedaling strength however, both the resistance groups showed significant gains over the controls; the off bike (squats) group increased strength by around 2.6% and the on-bike group (resisted pedaling sprints) increased strength by around 4.5%. Although the strengths gains in the on-bike group were higher, a statistical analysis showed that the increased scores were not large enough to be statistically significant (ie the gains in the off- and on-bike groups were roughly equivalent). However, while both the resistance groups improved strength, the control group meanwhile lost around 5.8% in their strength scores (see figure 2).

Figure 2: Aggregated changes in squat and pedaling strength

Another finding was that both the off- and on-bike groups also increased their Wingate performances (by 4.1% and 4.3%, respectively). This compared to a decline of 4.9% in the control group. The third finding was that muscle cross-sectional area (ie size) increased in the off- and on-bike resistance groups by 2.5% and 2.2% respectively. In the control group however, muscle cross-sectional area declined by 2.3%. The final finding was that the changes in body composition (body fat %) were not significantly different across the three groups.

Practical implications for athletes

While the evidence for the benefits of low-cadence training is rather patchy, this latest study suggests that when the loadings are high enough – around 70% of 1-rep max in the squat exercise – high-torque training on the bike (ie by pedaling against a very high resistance) can deliver real benefits. Indeed, the results above suggest that the gains in strength and power were similar to performing regular squat exercises with free weights.

Physiologically, this would make sense; if the loading achieved by sprinting on the bike against a very high resistance matches that generated during free weight squats, the stimulus to the muscle will be similar (your muscles don’t care if they are being loaded on or off the bike). It would have been useful to know if the both the resistance-trained cyclist groups also improved their cycling economy compared to the control group but unfortunately this wasn’t tested. But given what we already know about this topic, it’s likely they did.

The main take home message from this new research is that provided you can generate high enough loadings to replicate those achieved during lower-body weight training, on-bike resistance sessions could be just as effective as off-bike sessions in the gym! This opens up a range of possibilities for cyclists who for whatever reason may struggle to find time for or to travel to the gym. A session of flat out sprints – for example 4 sets of 8 reps – could deliver the same benefits as heavy weight training. In fact, when it comes to the specificity of the training and transfer to actual cycling performance, these benefits could be even greater.

The key of course is to use a high enough gear or resistance to generate the kinds of loading that are used during free-weight squats. On the bike, probably the easiest way to achieve this is to perform bursts of effort in a high gear while pedaling uphill. On stationary bikes and turbo trainers, it might be harder to generate those kinds of loadings unless more advance equipment is used such as a WattBike. If you have a power meter on your bike that can measure torque/force (eg InfoCrank) in real time, you can much more easily monitor your loadings and ensure that you are generating the force needed to get a powerful training effect!

References

1. European Journal of Applied Physiology 2016. Volume 116 (1) 195-201

2. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 1991 Sep; 31(3):345-50

3. J Physiol. 2008 Jan 1; 586(1):35-44

4. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2006 Oct;31(5):530-40

5. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2002 Oct;12(5):288-95

6. Bosch, F. Strength Training and Coordination: An Integrative Approach.2010 Publishers: Rotterdam (2015)

7. Inquiries in Sport & Physical Education Volume 8 (1) p91 – 98 (2010)

8. J Sci Med Sport. 2024 Sep;27(9):660-663

9. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017 Oct;12(9):1127-1136

10. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2024 Sep 3. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000003556. Online ahead of print