Resistance training (RT) has emerged as a significant method for enhancing cycling performance, according to a narrative review published in the Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports. Despite the growing evidence, many cyclists hesitate to incorporate RT into their training regimens due to concerns about excessive fatigue and unwanted muscle hypertrophy.
The review highlights that the addition of 1-2 weekly sessions of RT, utilizing moderate-to-high loads (60%-85% of one-repetition maximum or 1RM), can lead to improvements in key performance indicators for cyclists. Specifically, the authors recommend performing 2-4 sets per exercise across 3-5 compound lower-body movements, while maintaining limited intra-set fatigue (10%-20% velocity loss).
Interestingly, the review also discusses the potential of high-load on-bike torque training as an alternative when conventional RT is not feasible. This approach may provide similar benefits without the need for traditional weight training.
Moreover, the authors emphasize that when implemented correctly, RT does not negatively impact cycling performance through unwanted hypertrophy. Instead, it may serve as an effective strategy to counteract low bone mineral density, a common issue among competitive cyclists.
However, the review underscores that the effectiveness of RT largely depends on precise programming, including factors such as intensity, proximity to failure, and the timing of sessions relative to endurance training. As a result, while current evidence supports the role of RT in improving both health and performance in cyclists, further research is warranted to determine the optimal training parameters for maximizing these benefits.
What this study does not show
This review does not provide direct evidence from randomized controlled trials or meta-analyses regarding specific health outcomes resulting from resistance training in cyclists.
Evidence scorecard
- Analytic validity: established
- Clinical validity: partial
- Clinical utility: not established
The evidence is based on a narrative review of existing literature.