Hi There,

Long time listener, first time caller… Well not quite - good to come back to this forum after a few years off.

At the behest of Carl Paton off-list I am going to dredge up this age-old debate of whether strength training is beneficial for cyclists.  As you will see very early on, I am in the "yes it is" camp & at the very least believe that engaging in off-bike strength training does no harm, does not slow a rider down, does not bulk them up or make them muscle bound, & can actually help stave off many of the inherent problems with spending too much time in the saddle (postural deficits, osteopenia, etc). 

I say this based on a couple of assumptions;

1- Just as the on-bike training needs to be appropriate, so too does the strength work.  All types of training, on bike or otherwise, can be detrimental in the application of it.

2- I recognise that you cannot become a good cyclist in the gym.  You have to ride the bike & I do not advocate that everyone has to, should do, or can do gym-based strength training in place of riding the bike.  I see it as a supplemental form of training, no different from doing stretching - doing Yoga won't make you a good cyclist on its own, but many use this as a supplemental form of training.

I do a bit of cycle coaching (non-elite) & where possible I advocate some level of strength training be part of a cyclists overall programme, particularly for female & masters cyclists which are the ones I tend to train the most.  However, many cycle coaches are dead against it, with some claiming that there is no evidence that it helps performance & may indeed hinder it.  I have read the papers regarding the testing of theories, & to be honest, some of the research has some very large holes in it in terms of how you can apply this to the real world.

Invariably, researchers will often test performance criteria such as VO2max or LT, & will use an incremental or TTE test in the lab to do so.  However, unless you are time trialling, this rarely mimics a real bike race.  And by bike race, I am referring to the sort of races that most local NZ A-grade riders will engage in at a club/regional level:

-  short 80-160km courses

-  normally single day racing

-  often undulating course - lots of shorter power climbs, rarely with any long TdF-style climbs

-  lots of chasing breaks, bridging gaps, powering over climbs, etc

To my way of thinking, the NZ riding scene suits power riders.  Compare this to say a Pro Tour event that is multi-day, with some tough climbs, but is often raced in a team (on this point, you often here of people say 'Lance does this' or 'Lance doesn't do that', all the while forgetting that Lance rides in a team so he isn't the only factor in him winning a race).  Due to the nature of our riding here, I feel gaining extra strength/power helps significantly.  Especially when you take the view that often a race isn't won by the person who was the fastest in a straight line, had the biggest lungs or the highest LT, but by the person who slowed down the least over a course (particularly true amongst lower grade riders).  Or another way - the person who had the greatest fatigue resistance to a particular ride may well win the race.

Studies will put a group of cyclists through an 8-12 week block of training - one group with strength work, the other without, & then test VO2, LT, or do a TTE test.  They see no difference & proclaim strength training didn't help.  I have seen studies that take cyclists who are already doing high mileage & then just layer additional strength work on top of that.  Surprisingly no benefits found.  The vast majority put cyclists on bodybuilding style programmes - 10 weeks of 3x 10 reps, 3 days per week of leg extensions, leg curls, & leg press.  Again, no surprises that no benefit is found.  And with few exceptions, they train them for their set time (often from being novices in the gym) & then do all the testing immediately after the training block - with no adaptation period.  Diet is rarely controlled. 

My own experience working across many different sports, but particularly with cyclists, is that you need to do the pre-conditioning work prior, you need to use the compound movements, there needs to be lots of single leg focus, & there needs to be some sort of power transfer.  I have personally seen better results with training more at a neural level for the reps (2-4 reps) but manipulating set numbers to control overall volume (using higher sets to increase volume when hypertrophy was required, & dropping set number when either no increase in body mass or a maintenance of it was required). 

The best gains we got with our female track cyclists was when we put them through a 3 month block that concluded with them doing 12 sets of 2 for big lifts such as Bulgarian squats, ODL's, etc (peak power increased from <1000W to 1300W for them).  During this style of training & while concurrently doing work on the bike (I use a short - long training paradigm for this work too), they generally only had 2-3 weeks of good training in them before they went flat & would be put into a recovery week (so we would cycle 2-3 wks on, 1 wk off, over 12 week blocks).  During the training sessions in the gym, we would try to potentiate a bit of cross over by using unloaded rev outs on a bike immediately following a heavy lift.  E.g. Bulgarian squat for 2-4 reps per leg, then straight on to the erg for a 10-15sec rev out at 180rpm.  This is just my personal experience, & there are always other ways of doing things, but rarely, if at all, do you see these types of training protocols you just do not see in the literature.  I'd imagine there are just too many variables to control.

The science behind this style of training (as used by the British Track Cycling Squads - sprinters & enduros), is that with this sort of strength work, you develop a lot of strength in the type 2a fibres.  This strength isn't particularly useful on the bike.  But when you do a deload/detraining block - dropping most of the strength work out 6-8 weeks pre event (at about the time you are starting to lengthen everything out to race distance), and adding in more on & off-bike power work, you get a mass conversion of fibres from type 2a to 2b/x - the ones that can develop a lot of high speed power & seem to help with attacks up hills, bridging gaps, etc.  Again, to my knowledge, no studies have looked specifically at this aspect in the context of road cycling & strength work.

Also recently I read about the impact of muscle protein signalling & how this mechanism could explain the interference effect between concurrently training strength & endurance.  APMK seems to be shutting down mTORC1 if the endurance training & strength training are not separated properly.  That is, if a cyclist were to do a strength session in the morning & then a ride in the afternoon, AMPK would effectively shut down the strength-promoting effects of mTORC1.  I normally advocate my athletes do their endurance work early in the day & strength work in the evening on the basis that you are normally a bit stronger late in the day anyway due to circadian aspects, have eaten more food etc, plus you are close to bed & a growth hormone release to help with recovery.  The protein signalling just adds another dimension to this.

The counter argument seems to me to be that all this extra power is superfluous to riding a bike.  If a race requires an average power output of 300W, why do you need the capacity to generate 1500W maximally?  It is just wasted effort that could be put into other areas that are actually specific to the bike.  Other arguments revolve around the extra muscle mass affecting power to weight ratio (seemingly many coaches cannot separate gaining strength from gaining muscle mass).  However, my feelings are that over a course of a race, you are eating into your overall capacity as muscles fatigue.  As you get more tired, after each climb, attack, sprint, you are having to use more & more motor units to just generate that 300W for example - you can no longer do it with just a handful of slow twitch fibres. 

This line of thought was reinforced to me in the last race I did.  I was able to attack all the climbs, bridge gaps that others couldn't, & hold a good speed around the course, AND, be the only one in the bunch I came in with who could get out of the saddle & sprint at the end!  And I am convinced I was able to do this because I had probably 500W max extra capacity over most of the guys in my category.  Many guys were falling over with cramp on the side of the road on the last climb, unable to hold their 300W anymore.  In my mind having that capacity via intermediate fast twitch fibres, means that sitting on 300W (just an arbitrary number - have no idea what power I ride at) represents a smaller fraction of my overall capacity & therefore gives me better economy.

I have heard the arguments that training in the gym cannot replicate the joint angles, speed of movement etc, that you get on the bike.  Agreed.  But it is up to the training on the bike to take this generalised strength & convert it to useable power.  One could argue that stretching does not mimic joint angles & ranges of motion required on the bike.  Why not just stretch on the bike?  Why try to gain more flexibility than you need?  Because working on flexibility in a generalised sense allows for a benefit in the specific setting.  It is my belief that gym-based training has a similar effect.

Having spent a few years in the gym environment, I have seen those that have come into the gym (and heard the anecdotal evidence from other areas) that young unsupervised roadies in a gym are just as keen to build up the chest & guns & pull the chicks as any other gym bunny at that age!  A bit frustrating when they then tell others they have tried the gym & it didn't work (for their cycling at least).  The good thing about working with female & masters athletes, is that they are quite happy to ask for help… not go it alone like the younger guys like to do!

Absolutely horses for courses, and training needs to be adjusted for different training goals, seasons.  It has never been my argument that strength training is a necessary adjunctive training in cycling.  But rather it is an option, that if executed properly, can be potentially beneficial to select riders (I usually suggest for all women, & everyone riding masters categories… and maybe some of the younger ones who are generally weaker than kittens!).  Certainly not a form of training that riders need to be fearful of or worry that they will get too big or it will destroy their cycling legs.

If any of you have the time & wouldn't mind, I would appreciate any feedback or thoughts you have on the above.  Does my argument seem valid?  Have I completely missed something?