REF-701 · Devantier-Thomas et al., 2024 · Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, · Paper · PubMed
The impact of exercise-induced muscle damage on various cycling performance metrics: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Protocol
Systematic review + meta-analysis of studies in which a muscle-damaging protocol was applied and cycling performance was subsequently measured (the abstract gives 24-48 h for the VO₂ outcome). Primary outcome: cycling performance. Secondary outcomes: creatine kinase (CK), delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS), muscular contraction/force. Effects quantified as standardised mean differences via forest plots.
Key Findings
The effect of muscle damage on cycling is selective, not global — this is the entry's central value:
| Outcome (after the damaging protocol; VO₂ reported at 24-48 h) | Effect |
|---|---|
| Peak power — sprint | Significantly reduced (p<0.05) |
| Peak power — incremental test | Significantly reduced (p<0.05) |
| Time-trial performance | No significant change (p>0.05) |
| Distance-trial performance | No significant change (p>0.05) |
| VO₂ at submaximal power | No significant change (p>0.05) |
| Ventilation at submaximal power | Significantly increased (p<0.05) |
| RPE at submaximal power | Significantly increased (p<0.05) |
| CK, DOMS | Significantly increased (damage confirmed) |
| Muscular force | Significantly reduced (damage confirmed) |
The same watts feel harder without costing more oxygen. Economy (VO₂ per watt) is preserved, but ventilation and perceived effort rise — a dissociation between metabolic cost and perceived cost.
Maximal output is what degrades; self-paced sustained efforts (TT, distance trial) did not change. The authors still conclude EIMD affected both maximal and submaximal cycling performance (via the ventilation and RPE rise) and advise care when adding unaccustomed exercise to a cycling program.
Practical Application
Across the meta-analysed studies, after a muscle-damaging protocol cyclists lost peak power in sprint and incremental tests, while time-trial and distance-trial performance did not change; during submaximal cycling (VO₂ reported at 24-48 h) VO₂ was unchanged but ventilation and RPE rose — damage hits maximal output and perceived effort, not self-paced sustained efforts or economy.
Not from this paper; the base's own practice: do not schedule sprint work, a power-profile test or an FTP/ramp test in the 24-48 h after a damaging session (heavy lower-body gym, long descents, a hilly race) — the result will under-read the athlete, specifically at the maximal end.
Not from this paper; the base's own practice: a steady endurance or tempo ride 24-48 h after damage is defensible, since TT-type output held up in this meta-analysis — but expect it to feel harder than the power says (the RPE rise is the meta-analytic finding).
Inference, not tested: an RPE/HR-vs-power mismatch after a damaging day fits EIMD and is not automatically a sign of overreaching; weigh it against the readiness trend before cutting the block. Protect testing and sprints; be more relaxed about steady volume.
Limitations
Damage was induced by a muscle-damaging protocol before testing, not by real racing or a long ride — the transfer to "damage accumulated during hour 4 of a gravel race" is an inference, not a measured effect. (Inference, not tested: most such protocols are eccentric/resistance work; the abstract does not list them.)
The testing window reported is 24-48 h post; the model's *within-race* relevance (damage accruing during the effort itself) is not what this meta-analysis measured.
The abstract does not report the number of studies or participants, nor the training status of the samples. Inference, not tested: the "no change in TT" result may not hold for the most damaged states.
---
How this entry was checked and changed
Content correction 2026-09-27
Lead ▶ line now states the meta-analysis's finding (peak power down; TT/distance trial unchanged; VO₂ unchanged, ventilation and RPE up during submaximal cycling) before any advice; the abstract gives the 24-48 h window only for the VO₂ result.
Test-scheduling, steady-ride and RPE-mismatch advice relabelled as the base's own practice / inference; "neuromuscular" and "often eccentric/resistance protocols" and "heterogeneous training status" are not in the abstract and are now labelled or removed; added the authors' own conclusion.