The effect of turbo trainer cycling on pedalling technique and cycling efficiency
Participants
n=19 male cyclists.
Protocol
Cycling on a stationary turbo trainer vs on a treadmill at three power outputs (150, 200, 250 W). Measurements:
Gross efficiency via Douglas bags
Surface EMG (muscle activity patterns)
Instrumented pedals for pedal forces
Dead Centre size as the index of how evenly power is distributed around the pedal revolution
Key Results
| Muscle | Larger contribution on | Difference |
|---|---|---|
| Vastus lateralis | turbo trainer | +7% |
| Rectus femoris | turbo trainer | +17% |
| Tibialis anterior | turbo trainer | +14% |
| Gastrocnemius lateralis | treadmill | +14% |
| Biceps femoris | treadmill | +19% |
| Gluteus maximus | treadmill | +10% |
All differences p<0.05.
Dead Centre size increased on the turbo trainer (p<0.05) — which the authors read as a better distribution of power around the pedal revolution, not a worse one.
Efficiency: no difference — treadmill 18.8 ± 0.7% vs turbo trainer 18.5 ± 0.6%.
Authors' conclusion: cycling technique and the type of ergometer can be altered without affecting cycling efficiency.
Mechanism
Inference, not tested: a fixed trainer removes lateral bike sway, which may reduce the stabilising work of glutes and hamstrings and shift load toward the quadriceps and tibialis anterior. The abstract reports the recruitment shift but not its cause, and it explicitly says the altered activity produced a better power distribution (larger Dead Centre) with no efficiency penalty.
Practical Application
n=19 male cyclists at 150-250 W: on a fixed turbo trainer the quadriceps and tibialis anterior worked harder (vastus lateralis +7%, rectus femoris +17%, tibialis anterior +14%) and the posterior chain less (gastrocnemius lateralis −14%, biceps femoris −19%, gluteus maximus −10%, all p<0.05) than on a treadmill; gross efficiency was identical (18.5 vs 18.8%), and power was spread MORE evenly around the stroke on the trainer — indoor riding changes which muscles do the work, without costing efficiency.
Inference, not tested: a heavy indoor diet shifts the training load toward the quads and away from glutes/hamstrings; the study measured one session, not a chronic imbalance.
Not from this paper; the base's own practice: indoor-heavy athletes keep hip-extension strength work (deadlifts, hip thrusts) in the plan to cover the posterior-chain gap.
Inference, not tested: rocker plates or riding outdoors restore lateral movement and might normalise the activation pattern — not tested here.
Inference, not tested: ERG mode was not studied; the trainer here was fixed but power was set by the rider at prescribed wattages.
Limitations
19 cyclists, only male
Low to moderate power (150–250 W) — may differ at race intensity
No ERG vs non-ERG comparison — trainer mode not part of the design
Acute measurement — no chronic adaptation study
How this entry was checked and changed
Content correction 2026-09-27
Dead Centre direction was misread: the entry said the increased Dead Centre on the trainer meant "less smooth power delivery / less effective force application" -> the abstract says the increase means a BETTER distribution of power during the pedal revolution.
Muscle table gave ranges (+7-17%, +10-19%) -> replaced with the abstract's per-muscle values (VL 7, RF 17, TA 14; GL 14, BF 19, GM 10).
Sport line "cycling, strength" -> cycling. Lead now the study's finding; strength-work advice labelled as the base's practice, sway/rocker-plate reasoning labelled inference.