Maximal strength training improves cycling economy by 4.8% in competitive cyclists
Participants
n=13 competitive road cyclists completed the study (10 men, 3 women) of 16 randomized (12 men, 4 women): intervention 8 (7 men, 1 woman), control 5
Protocol
8 weeks: half-squats, 4 sets of 4 repetitions maximum, 3 times per week, added to normal endurance training; control continued normal endurance training. Outcomes: 1RM and rate of force development (RFD) in half-squat, VO2max, cycling economy (CE) and work efficiency at 70% VO2max, time to exhaustion at maximal aerobic power.
Key Findings
| Measure | Intervention | p |
|---|---|---|
| Cycling economy (at 70% VO2max) | +4.8% | <0.05 |
| Work efficiency | +4.7% (control +1.4%, significantly smaller) | <0.05 |
| 1RM half-squat | +14.2% | <0.05 |
| RFD | +16.7% | <0.05 |
| Time to exhaustion @ pre-intervention MAP | +17.2% | <0.05 |
| VO2max | No change | NS |
| Cadence | No change | NS |
| Body weight | No change | NS |
The control group changed in nothing except a small gain in work efficiency (1.4%).
Practical Application
In 13 competitive road cyclists (Sunde 2010), 8 weeks of half-squats 4×4RM three times a week on top of normal riding improved cycling economy at 70% VO2max by 4.8%, work efficiency by 4.7% and time to exhaustion at maximal aerobic power by 17.2%, with 1RM +14.2% and RFD +16.7% — while VO2max, cadence and body weight did not change; the control group gained only 1.4% in work efficiency.
The gain is oxygen cost, not ceiling: the same power at 70% VO2max cost 4.8% less oxygen, and the rider lasted 17.2% longer at the old maximal aerobic power — a buffer for climbs and surges without any VO2max change.
Heavy, low-rep, few-set work (4×4RM) is what was tested; the authors advise cyclists to include maximal strength training. Body weight did not rise.
Inference, not tested: economy gains of this size should translate to sustained-power performance, but no time trial was measured here.
Limitations
Small RCT (8 vs 5 completers of 16 randomized) in competitive cyclists over a short block; economy gains of this size are within the range where measurement error and familiarisation matter.
Cycling economy improved, but the translation to race performance is inferred rather than measured here.
Mostly men (10 of 13; 3 women), competitive but not elite (Tier 2-3); masters and elite riders are not represented.
One maximal-strength protocol at one frequency — this shows that heavy strength work helped, not that it is the optimal dose.
The concurrent cost is not evaluated: what the added strength work displaced from the cycling week is not reported (SYNTH-21).
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level
regraded 2026-09-27 from A: parallel RCT, n=13 completers (8 vs 5)
Content correction 2026-09-27
"On a 5-hour ride equals +12 W free power" -> not in the abstract; removed.
"Male well-trained cyclists" -> 10 men and 3 women completed (of 12 men and 4 women randomized); participant line and limitation corrected. Added the control group's +1.4% work efficiency and the exact protocol (4 sets × 4RM, 3×/week).
Level A -> B (parallel RCT, n=13).