The Effects of Training on Gross Efficiency in Cycling: A Review
Overview
Hopker and colleagues review the debate on whether gross efficiency (GE) in cycling can be increased by training. Cross-sectional studies had reported no significant difference in GE between trained and untrained cyclists; the review argues that methodological inadequacies played a crucial role in those conclusions and that in well-controlled, rigorously designed studies training has a positive influence on GE.
Key Findings
Cross-sectional comparisons: no significant GE difference between trained and untrained cyclists — but the review attributes this to methodological shortcomings of most of those studies
In well-controlled and rigorously designed studies, training improves gross efficiency
Putative mechanisms: muscle fibre-type transformation, changes in muscle fibre shortening velocity, changes within the mitochondria
The specific mechanisms and their impact on cycling performance remain to be determined (authors' own caveat)
The abstract gives no efficiency values, fibre-type percentages or rates of improvement
Practical Application
Hopker's review concludes that gross efficiency in cycling is trainable — the older cross-sectional finding of no difference between trained and untrained riders is, in the authors' reading, a product of methodological weaknesses, and well-controlled studies show training raises GE. Efficiency is a training outcome, not a fixed trait.
The review names fibre-type transformation, fibre shortening velocity and mitochondrial changes as candidate mechanisms, but states that the mechanisms and their performance impact are still undetermined — so do not attribute an efficiency change to a specific adaptation.
Not from this paper; the base's own practice: track economy with a fixed submaximal test (power at a fixed heart rate, or at the aerobic threshold) repeated identically, read the trend monthly rather than session to session, and read it alongside threshold power — the two can move at different rates in the same block. Magnitudes per block are not given by this review; the single-athlete case of a long-term efficiency gain is REF-077 Coyle 2005.
Limitations
Narrative review without systematic method or pooled numbers; the abstract states a position (training improves GE) rather than an effect size
Mechanisms explicitly undetermined
Cycling only
How this entry was checked and changed
Content correction 2026-09-27
"Trained 22% GE vs untrained 19%; 70% vs 40% Type I fibres" -> deleted; the abstract gives no values and says cross-sectional studies found NO significant GE difference between trained and untrained cyclists.
"Economy improves 1.5-2.5% per 4-week block; strength +1.2-1.5%; base +1.0-1.5%; VO2max block ~0.5%; ~4-5% per macrocycle" -> deleted; not in the abstract.
"Cross-training enhances economy synergistically" -> deleted. Testing/tracking advice relabelled "Not from this paper; the base's own practice". Sport line cycling, running -> cycling; title set to the paper's own title.
Cross-reference descriptions checked against the cited entries' current content; wrong years, wrong entries and claims the cited entry does not make were corrected.