Comparison of Short-Sprint and Heavy Strength Training on Cycling Performance
Participants
n=28 competitive, well-trained cyclists
VO2max: 61.1 ± 5.9 mL/kg/min
Age: 29 ± 6 years
Protocol (4 + 6 weeks, from the abstract)
Preparation (4 weeks): all participants performed a strength-training period.
Intervention (6 weeks): randomised to add either heavy-strength training (HST) or short-sprint training (SST) to their usual endurance training. Session content, frequency and loads are in the full text, not the abstract.
Tests before the preparation period and before/after the 6-week intervention: body composition; power output at 4 mmol/L blood lactate; a 100-min cycling test containing 6-s and 30-s sprints, 60 min at 2 mmol/L lactate and a 5-min all-out effort. Before/after the intervention only: 1RM half-squat and 55-m maximal sprints on the cyclists' own bikes.
Key Results (from the abstract)
| Outcome (change over 6 weeks) | SST | HST | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6-s sprint, fresh | +4.7 ± 2.6% | +1.1 ± 3.5% | SST (p < 0.002) |
| 6-s sprint after prolonged cycling | +6.1 ± 1.8% | +1.8 ± 4.2% | SST (p < 0.002) |
| 30-s sprint | +3.7 ± 2.8% | +1.3 ± 2.5% | SST (p < 0.002) |
| 55-m seated sprint on own bike | +4.3 ± 2.1% | +0.2 ± 1.8% | SST (p < 0.002) |
| 1RM half-squat | −3.9 ± 3.8% | +9.3 ± 3.6% | HST (p < 0.001) |
| 5-min all-out power, VO2max, power at 4 mmol/L, gross efficiency | no group difference | no group difference | — |
Critical Finding: After a common 4-week strength block, six weeks of on-bike short-sprint training beat heavy strength training on every sprint measure (average and peak power), while heavy strength training alone raised maximal strength; neither produced a group difference in endurance capacities or gross efficiency. The authors read this as a high degree of specificity in both adaptations.
Application
In 28 well-trained cyclists, six weeks of short-sprint training added to endurance training improved sprint performance more than heavy strength training — 6-s sprint +4.7% vs +1.1% fresh and +6.1% vs +1.8% after prolonged cycling, 30-s sprint +3.7% vs +1.3%, 55-m sprint on own bike +4.3% vs +0.2% — while heavy strength training won on half-squat 1RM (+9.3% vs −3.9%); 5-min power, VO2max, power at 4 mmol/L and gross efficiency did not differ between groups (parallel RCT, Kristoffersen 2019).
Choose by the target: for sprint and repeated-attack capacity the bike is the better tool; for maximal strength, the gym. Neither route improved endurance capacity or efficiency more than the other over six weeks.
The sprint advantage held after prolonged cycling (60 min at 2 mmol/L before the sprint), which is the situation a race finish presents.
Inference, not tested: the 1RM loss in the SST group (−3.9%) suggests strength gained in the preparation block fades without gym maintenance; a plan that wants both keeps a light strength dose alongside sprint work. This study did not test that combination.
Not from this paper; the base's own practice: gym strength is kept in the plan for injury resistance and force reserve, with on-bike sprints added in the specific phase when the event is decided by accelerations; session prescriptions given in earlier versions of this entry were not from the abstract.
Limitations
From the design as the abstract reports it: two randomized parallel groups over a 6-week intervention after a shared 4-week strength period — a short intervention.
Twenty-eight competitive cyclists in total; the group sizes and the participants' sex are not given in the abstract.
Session content, frequency and loads for SST and HST are not in the abstract, so the dose behind each result cannot be read from it.
How this entry was checked and changed
Content correction 2026-09-27
"16-week protocol, weeks 5-16 divergence, n=14 per group, 10 h/week, 10-15 × 20-30 s, 4-6 × 4-6 at 80-90% 1RM, tests at weeks 4/8/12/16" -> abstract: 4-week common strength period, then 6-week randomised intervention; tests before preparation and before/after intervention; group sizes and session details not in abstract.
Results table (1495 vs 1410 W, 1010 vs 965 W, fatigue index 15.2 vs 17.8%, VO2max 62.4 vs 62.7, VT 4.1 vs 4.2 W/kg, economy −2.1% vs −0.3%) deleted: invented. Replaced by the abstract's percentage changes.
"SST improved economy, HST degraded it" -> abstract: NO group difference in gross efficiency or any endurance capacity; HST produced the larger 1RM gain (+9.3% vs −3.9%).
VO2max SD 2.9 -> 5.9, age SD 5 -> 6; mechanism sections (RFD, PCr, CNS fatigue) deleted; Tier 4-5 -> 2-3; Sport "team-sport" removed.
Cross-reference labels pointed at the wrong entry or named the wrong author (checked against each cited entry's byline); repointed to the entry the label describes, or removed where the base holds no such paper.
2026-09-28: added Limitations from the abstract (Europe PMC PMID 31555153).
Full text (checked 2026-10-12)
32 participants (28 men and 4 women) were included and four withdrew due to injury and illness, so 26 men and 2 women completed; randomisation was to SST (n = 16) or HST (n = 16), two sessions a week on top of regular endurance training (full text).
Preparation period (all): half-squat in a Smith machine, one-leg leg press, one-legged hip flexion and toe raise, 3 sets of 10RM and 3 sets of 6RM in the two weekly sessions for the first three weeks, then 3 sets of 8RM and 3 sets of 5RM in the last week (full text).
HST intervention: 3 sets of 8RM and 3 sets of 5RM for 2 weeks, then 3 sets of 6RM and 3 sets of 4RM for four weeks, with 2 min rest between sets and exercises (full text).
SST session: 15 min warm-up, then three sets of four maximal seated sprints from a standstill on a WattBike with 2 min active recovery between sprints and 5 min between sets at 70% HRmax; sprint durations were 4 and 6 s (weeks 1-2), 7 and 5 s (weeks 3-4) and 8 and 6 s (weeks 5-6), with resistance set for a cadence of 110–120 rpm (full text).
Weekly logged training did not differ between groups (intervention period 14.4 ± 8.6 h SST vs 14.1 ± 8.4 h HST) (full text).
1RM half-squat went from 125 ± 24 kg to 136 ± 25 kg in HST (+9.1 ± 3.7%) and from 128 ± 32 kg to 122 ± 30 kg in SST (−3.9 ± 3.8%), between-group ES = 3.40 (full text).
Between-group effect sizes for sprint changes: 6-s APO fresh ES = 1.16, 6-s APO after prolonged cycling ES = 1.42, 30-s APO ES = 0.85, and 55-m seated sprint ES = 1.97, where SST time fell from 7.55 ± 0.40 to 7.21 ± 0.28 s (only 8 SST and 10 HST riders did the 55-m test) (full text, Table 1).
Wmax rose more with SST than HST (3.2 ± 2.8% vs 0.6 ± 2.9%, p = 0.037, ES = 0.91); VO2max and power at 4 mmol/L rose significantly within HST only, with no between-group difference (full text, Table 2).