ArticlePDF Available

Does maximal strength training improve endurance performance in highly trained cyclists: A systematic review

Authors:
Available online at www.scholarsresearchlibrary.com
Scholars Research Library
European Journal of Sports and Exercise Science, 2012, 1 (3):90-102
(http://scholarsresearchlibrary.com/archive.html)
ISSN: 2278 – 005X
90
Scholars Research Library
Does maximal strength training improve endurance performance in highly
trained cyclists: A systematic review
Steven T. Ellery
1
, Justin W.L. Keogh,
1,2
, Kelly R. Sheerin
1
1
C/- Franklin Physiotherapy, 69 Sedden Street Pukekohe, NZ
2
Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia
3
Sport Performance Research Institute New Zealand, School of Sport and Recreation
AUT University, Private bag 92006, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT
Muscle strength may play an important role in endurance road cycling events. By increasing lower body strength
and power, the anaerobic energy production and maximal levels of muscular force required during races to climb
hills, perform repeated surges in pace, or in the final sprint may improve. While strength training is often performed
by highly trained cyclists, the scientific literature supporting this practice is subject to a number of methodological
limitations and potentially confounding variables that raise doubts over the efficacy of strength training to enhance
performance in this population. The purpose of this review is therefore to identify and evaluate original research
examining the influence of strength training on road cycling endurance performance in highly trained cyclists.
Using relevant databases and keywords, nine training studies met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed. Grade
B-level evidence indicated that following performance of strength training, highly trained road cyclists can
significantly improve performance variables such as lactate power profile, oxygen cost or consumption, cycling
economy, work or exercise efficiency, as well as peak and mean power outputs during time trials lasting between
30-seconds and 4-kilometres. Grade C evidence also suggests mean and average power outputs during time trials
ranging from 40 to 60 minutes, and time to exhaustion at maximal aerobic power or 80-85% VO
2
max are improved.
However, the physiological mechanisms responsible for these improvements are unclear. Future research is also
necessary to determine what is the best form(s) of strength training for these athletes, and how best to incorporate
such training into their annual periodized training plan.
Keywords: concurrent training; endurance athlete; resistance training.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
Professional road cycling is a physiologically demanding sport. The training volumes required to compete
internationally are extremely large, with elite cyclists performing 27,000 – 39,000 km a year [1] (Jeukendrup).
Further, in professional cycling’s highest profile stage races, the Tour de France, Vuelta Espana and Giro d Italia,
cyclists complete 3000-4000 km of racing over 21-23 days, in stages ranging between 7km (prologue) and 250km [2]
(Lucia). Successful performance in these events attracts worldwide media attention, and is therefore associated with
considerable financial benefits for the cyclists and sponsors of the teams competing in these events. Consequently,
identifying training interventions that improve competitive performance, and the physiological and metabolic
adaptations associated with these forms of training, are of high importance to these athletes, their coaches, and
sponsors [3] (Paton and Hopkins).
The physiological/metabolic demands of road races vary depending on factors such as the type of race e.g. mass start,
time trial, or criterion, race duration, environment/terrain, strategy, competitive level, and the influence of drafting
techniques [4] (Fernandez-Garcia) [5] (Lucia) [6] (Padilla). Successful performance is determined by the interaction
Steven T. Ellery
et al Euro. J. Sports Exerc. Sci., 2012, 1 (3):
______________________________________________________________________________
91
Scholars Research Library
of three main factors: maximum oxygen uptake (“VO
2
max”), performance oxygen uptake, i.e. the percentage of
VO2max at the lactate threshold, and mechanical efficiency or economy i.e. oxygen uptake required to perform at a
given velocity [7] (Bassett). However, high anaerobic power outputs, and breathing patterns/ventilation efficiency are
also considered important determinants of endurance cycling performance [8] (Faria) [3] (Paton and Hopkins). In
mass start road racing, the aerobic energy system, with a high reliance on both glycolytic and lipolytic components,
is predominant with 72-95% of these events spent at exercise intensities below or between 70 and 90% of VO
2
max
[9] (Hawley) [5] (Lucia) [10] (Rauch) [11] (Vogt). Although the percentage time spent at intensities 90% of
VO
2
max accounts for no more than 5% of the race, high power outputs ranging between 9.8 and 12.3W/kg for 5
second efforts have been observed in professional road cycling events. As such, the outcomes of races are often
determined by the ability to produce high levels of anaerobic energy and supra-maximal levels of muscular force
during short hill climbs, repeated surges in pace, or in the final sprint [12] (Ebert) [13] (Laursen) [14] (Quod). Mass
start road racing is therefore best characterized as a dynamic event where aerobic and anaerobic energy production
both play important roles [15] (Palmer) [14] (Quod).
Training for these events therefore has traditionally included both long duration/low intensity aerobic training, and
phases of higher intensity anaerobic interval training, with appropriate recovery and tapering [16] (Laursen) [17]
(Laursen). More recently, trainers and coaches are also now including resistance training in the programmes of elite
road cyclists, with a view to improving the energy systems and muscular adaptations required to produce the short
sustained high power outputs required during races. The physiological compatibility of simultaneously performing
strength and endurance training, often referred to as concurrent training, has been widely investigated in recent times.
Concurrent training has resulted in improvements in work economy in endurance sports such as cross-country skiing
and running [18] (Hoff) [19] (Osteras) [20] (Storen). Similarly, studies evaluating measures of cycling performance
in previously untrained or moderately trained subjects have demonstrated improved cycling economy, time to
exhaustion, and reductions in energy expenditure following performance of concurrent training [21] (Hansen) [22]
(Loveless) [23] (Marcinik) [24] (Minahan). However, few studies have evaluated the influence of concurrent training
in high level endurance athletes. In a recent review, Yamamoto et al. [25] identified equivocal findings in the
research on the effects of concurrent training on endurance performance in endurance cyclists. Unfortunately, only
five studies were reviewed, and subjects in the studies included ‘club level’ cyclists or athletes who had performed as
little as seven hours or 150km of cycle training per week over a six month period. Where elite road cyclists are
characterized by their extremely high VO
2
max values, performance VO2, and cycling economy, and often train
between 500-700km per week over a sustained number of years, the results of Yamamoto et al’s [25] review does not
clarify the influence of concurrent training on long term endurance capacity in high level endurance cyclists.
It is also well established that adaptations resulting from training are highly specific to the mode of activity
performed, and the genetic and molecular mechanisms of adaptation induced by resistance and endurance training are
distinct [9] (Hawley) [26] (Nader). Resistance and endurance training activate or repress different genes and cellular
signaling pathways, i.e. resistance training stimulates the myofibril proteins responsible for muscle hypertrophy
culminating in gains in maximal strength [27] (Fry) [28] (Tesch). In contrast, endurance training increases muscle
fiber mitochondrial content and respiratory capacity, slows rates of utilization of muscle glycogen and blood glucose,
increases reliance on fat utilization, and reduces lactate production during sub-maximal exercise [29] (Coffey) [9]
(Hawley) [30] (Holloszy). Performing concurrent training potentially interferes with the development of aerobic
capacity by inducing hypertrophy and increases in the cross sectional area of both Type I and Type II fibres [31]
(Putman). Muscle fibre hypertrophy reduces the mitochondrial volume density of both Type I and Type II fibres [32]
(Always) [33] (Chilibeck). This has a negative effect on muscle oxidative capacity by reducing the activity of
oxidative enzymes, when enzyme activity is expressed relative to protein content [34] (Tesch). Therefore, although a
strong relationship exists between maximum strength and power and performance in sprint cycling events, it is
unclear if concurrent training induces favorable training adaptations for endurance cycling performance [35] (Stone).
It is possible though, that concurrent training may result in adaptations that could improve performance in endurance
cycling events. For example, resistance training may improve cycling economy or efficiency by decreasing the
proportion of maximal force required for each pedal stroke, and increasing the strength of Type I muscle fibres [36]
(Coyle) [37] (Horowitz). In addition, resistance training may also cause transformation of Type IIX fibres to more
oxidative Type IIA myosin isoform expressions, potentially enhancing the oxidative capacity of the trained muscle
fibres [38] (Adams) [39] (Andersen) [40] (Hather) [31] (Putman). Theoretically, higher power outputs at sub-
maximal lactate concentrations and increases in time to exhaustion would result from improving Type I muscle fibre
strength and transforming Type IIX to Type IIA isoform expressions [41] (Hausswirth) [42] (Hickson). It has also
been also suggested that resistance training improves the lactate power profile by enhancing the capacity of skeletal
muscle to buffer hydrogen ions during exercise [43] (Paavolainen). Consequently, cyclists who have been performing
concurrent training as part of their periodized training programmes, may have a performance advantage over non-
strength trained athletes during endurance road races [13] (Laursen) [44] (Levin).
Steven T. Ellery
et al Euro. J. Sports Exerc. Sci., 2012, 1 (3):
______________________________________________________________________________
92
Scholars Research Library
For highly trained road cyclists, it remains somewhat unclear whether concurrent training will interfere with the
development of aerobic capacity, or whether improvements in maximal strength will lead to increased anaerobic
capacity and performance in a road race or time trial. The purpose of this review therefore is to identify and evaluate
original research examining the influence of maximal strength training on road cycling endurance performance in
highly trained road cyclists to identify the influence of this training method on the performance parameters associated
with road cycle racing.
Literature Search Methods
A search of Medline (Pub/Med), CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, ProQuest 5000 International and Google Scholar was
performed using the key words maximal strength or resistance training, cycling, elite or highly trained or competitive
cyclists, endurance performance, and various combinations of these words. Additional search strategies included using
the ‘related articles’ option in PubMed and examining the reference lists of articles identified in the initial search.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria used to narrow the focus of this review are listed in Table I. Review articles or articles
examining the effects of strength or resistance training on untrained subjects were not included in the review.
Table I: Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Inclusion Exclusion
Human subjects
Not human subjects
Highly trained or competitive male cyclists or triathletes – over 1 year cycle
training with VO
2
max >50 ml.kg
-1
min
-1
; or highly trained or competitive female
cyclists or triathletes – over 1 year cycle training with VO
2
max >47 ml.kg
-1
min
-1
Untrained recreational male cyclists or triathletes with
VO
2
max 50 ml.kg
-1
min
-1
; or Untrained recreational male
cyclists or triathletes with VO
2
max 47 ml.kg
-1
min
-1
Outcome measure included parameters of endurance cycling performance i.e. time
trial, time to exhaustion or similar
Outcome measure exclusively 1RM, Vo2max or similar
Strength training was either performed exclusively off the bike or as part of a
concurrent training programme including both off the bike resistance training and
short duration high intensity supra-maximal intervals on the bike
Strength training performed exclusively on the bike i.e.
short duration high intensity supra-maximal cycling
intervals
Data Analysis
To enable the formulation of recommendations from the research identified, the methodological design of each study
was evaluated using the critical evaluation methods of Megens and Harris [45] and Sackett [46], with two additional
criteria; randomisation and control also added (see Table II). Each study reviewed was categorized using a four point
scale. Level I studies were large randomized controlled trials using more than 100 participants, in which the levels of
Type I and Type II errors were likely to be low. Level II studies were smaller randomized controlled trials using less
than 100 subjects, where the possibility of Type I and Type II errors was greater. Level III studies were non-randomized,
concurrent or cohort studies. Level IV studies were quasi experimental or case series studies where no comparison or
control group was included. Recommendations were as follows: Grade A recommendations required the support of at
least one Level I study, Grade B recommendations required the support of one Level II study, and Grade C
recommendations required the support of one Level III or IV study [45] [46]. Statistically significant within group
differences identified in Level I or II studies are classified as Grade C recommendations.
Mohsen Karami
et al Euro. J. Sports Exerc. Sci., 2012, 1 (3):90-102
______________________________________________________________________________
93
Scholars Research Library
Table II: Scientific rigour of the reviewed studies
Study
Inclusion/Exclusion
Criteria clearly
stated
Training
Protocol
Described
Reliable
Outcome
Measures
Valid
Outcome
Measures
Subject/
Assessor
Blinding
Subjects
Accounted
For
Randomisation
Control
Level
– 5
Point
Scale
Bastiaans et
al
(2001)
Inclusion
Y
Exclusion
Y
Y
Y
Y
?
Y
N
Y
III
Bishop et al
(1999)
Inclusion
Y
Exclusion
Y
Y
Y
Y
?
Y
Y
Y
II
Hausswirth
(2009)
Inclusion
Y
Exclusion
N
Y
Y
?
Assessor
?
Subjects
Y
Y
Y
Y
II
Hickson et al
(1988)
Inclusion
N
Exclusion
N
Y
N
N
?
Y
N
N
IV
Levin et al
(2009)
Inclusion
Y
Exclusion
Y
Y
Y
?
?
Y
Y
Y
II
Paton &
Hopkins
(2005)
Inclusion
Y
Exclusion
N
Y
Y
N
?
Y
Y
Y
II
Ronnestad et
al
(2009)
Inclusion
Y
Exclusion
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
III
Ronnestad, et
al., (2010)
Inclusion
Y
Exclusion
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
III
Sunde et al
(2009)
Inclusion
Y
Exclusion
Y
Y
N
N
?
Y
Y
Y
II
Key:
Level I Studies: large randomized trial, defined as those with more than 100 participants, in which level of
false positives or false negatives would be low;
Level II Studies: smaller randomized controlled trials, defined as those with less than 100 participants,
where greater chance for false positives or negatives to occur;
Level III Studies: non randomized, concurrent, cohort comparisons;
Level IV Studies: non-randomized studies;
Level V Studies: case series or studies
RESULTS
Nine eligible studies were identified that investigated the influence of concurrent training on endurance performance in
highly trained road cyclists (see Table III). Five of the studies are categorized as Level II [48] (Bishop) [41]
(Hausswirth) [44] (Levin) [49] Paton) [50] (Sunde), three as Level III [47] (Bastiaans) [51] (Ronnestad) [52]
(Ronnestad) , and one as Level IV [42] (Hickson). Eight studies observed significant within-group improvements in
determinants of road cycling performance for cyclists performing strength training in addition to their normal endurance
training [42] (Bastiaans) [41] (Hausswirth) [42] (Hickson) [44] (Levin) [49] (Paton) [52] Ronnestad) [51] (Ronnestad)
[50] (Sunde). Five studies also observed significant between-group improvements in determinants of road cycling
performance i.e. for cyclists who performed strength training in addition to their normal endurance training compared to
control groups of cyclists who performed endurance training alone [42] (Bastiaans) [44] (Levin) [49] (Paton) [51]
(Ronnestad) [50] (Sunde). Only one study failed to identify either significant within or between group improvements in
determinants of road cycling performance for cyclists performing strength training in addition to their normal endurance
training [48] (Bishop).
Mohsen Karami
et al Euro. J. Sports Exerc. Sci., 2012, 1 (3):90-102
______________________________________________________________________________
94
Scholars Research Library
Table III: Changes in cycling performance associated with a strength training programme
Study Subjects Resistance Training Programme Design
Changes in Performance
Training Sets &
Reps Frequenc
y Duratio
n Time
Trial/TTE
Short
Term
Power
Vo2max/
Lactate
Threshold
1
RM
Bastiaans
et al. (2) E: 6 M cyclists
8.8+/-1.8 h/wk
ET, Vo2max not
stated
FW/Machine
s (high
repetition/lo
w weight
explosive
RT)
2 x 30 Not stated 9 weeks
NP 1hr TT –
MPO
+7.9%*
30-s Erg
test
+4.3%*α
PPO
during
ICE test
+6.3%
Vo2max & LT
measure used in
calculation of
GE& DE
GE +1.1%
DE +4.3%
NT
C: 8 M cyclists
8.9 +/- 1.7h/wk
ET, Vo2max not
stated
- - - - MPO
+5.9%*
30-s Erg
test –5%
PPO
during
ICE test
+4.4%
GE + 0.7%
DE + 2.2%
Bishop et
al. (3) E: 14 F cyclists
110.2+/-
29.4k/wk, peak
Vo2 48.2 ml.kg
-
1
min
-1
FW
Periodize
d incl.
5x6-8RM
or
4x4-6RM
or
3x2-4RM
2/wk 12
weeks P 1.hr TT –
APO
+0.9%
LT +3%
+35.
9%*
α
C: 7 F cyclists
123.6+/-
35.8k/wk, peak
Vo2 48.3 ml.kg
-
1
min
-1
- - - - 1.hr TT –
APO
+2.7%
+0.4% +3.7
%
Hausswirt
h et al. (8) E:7 M triathletes
11.7+/-3.7h/wk
ET; Vo2max
69.9 ml.kg
-1
min
-
1
FW/Machine
s 3-5 x 3-
5RM 3/wk 5 weeks 2.hr cycle
test @
constant
power
output -
no
significant
between
group
difference
in
Vo2max;
HRmax;
Pmax;
Vo2,HR,
power
values
measured
to VT1 and
VT2
before and
after;
significant
within
group
decrease in
HR for
periods 2
and 3
PPO
during
ICE test
+1.7%
No significant
difference in
Vo2max;
HRmax; Pmax;
Vo2,HR, power
values
measured to
VT1 and VT2
during 2.hr
cycle test before
and after
+6.6
%*
C: 7 M
triathletes
11.9+/-3.1h/wk
ET; Vo2max
68.4 ml.kg
-1
min
-
1
- - - - No
significant
difference
in
Vo2max;
HRmax;
Pmax;
PPO
during
ICE test -
1.7%
No significant
difference in
Vo2max;
HRmax; Pmax;
Vo2,HR, power
values
measured to
-
4.1%
*
Mohsen Karami
et al Euro. J. Sports Exerc. Sci., 2012, 1 (3):90-102
______________________________________________________________________________
95
Scholars Research Library
Vo2,HR,
power
values
measured
to VT1 and
VT2
before and
after
VT1 and VT2
during 2.hr
cycle test before
and after
Hickson et
al. (10)
E: .8
cyclist/runner s
(6 M 2 F);
Vo2max 54.4
ml.kg
-1
min
-1
FW/Machine
s 3-5 x
5RM and
3 x 25
(toe
raises)
3/wk 10
weeks
NP
TTE (min)
@ 80-85%
V02max
+18.8%*
TTE @
max work
rates
+11%*
Vo2max L/min
No change
LT No change
+30
%*
Levin et al
. (18) E: 7 M cyclists/
triathletes
274+/-84k;
526+/-85min
p/wk ET;
Vo2max 62.4
ml.kg
-1
min
-1
FW/Machine
s/
Plyometric
3 x 6 or 3
x 12 or 4
x 5
repetition
s
3/wk 6 weeks
P 30k TT
No within
group
difference
in time to
completion
or mean W
produced
PPO/APO
during
250m &
1k sprints
in 30kTT
No
difference
s in
PPO/APO
during
sprints
PPO +4%
first 250m
&1k
sprint
PPO
+6%14k
250m
sprint
PPO - 5%
final
sprint
PPO
during
ICE test
-1.7%
Vo2max No
change 1RM
squat
+26
%*
C:. 7 male
cyclists/triathlet
es
278+/-
34k;613+/-
78min ET;
Vo2max 63.1
ml.kg
-1
min
-1
- - - - Within
group time
to
completion
+ 0.3% and
MAP
+0.7%
No
difference
s in
PPO/APO
during
sprints
PPO
+13%,
+7%,
+11% in
final 3
sprints*α
PPO
during
ICE test
-1.1%
V02max
+0.01% +
6.1%
Paton &
Hopkins
(26)
E: 9 M cyclists
11.6 +/- 2.1h/wk
ET; Lactate
power profile
68.3%, Vo2max
not stated
Plyometrics 3 x
maximal
effort
explosive
jumps,
3 x 20
2-3/wk 4-5
weeks
NP
4k MPO
+8.1%*α
30-second
power
+9%*α
1km
MPO +
8.7%*α
LT + 3.7%*α
oxygen cost
+3%*α
Mohsen Karami
et al Euro. J. Sports Exerc. Sci., 2012, 1 (3):90-102
______________________________________________________________________________
96
Scholars Research Library
explosive
step ups
5 x 30
sec bike
sprints,
PPO
during
ICE test
+6.8%*α
C: 9 M cyclists
12.9 +/- 3.3
h/wk ET;
Lactate power
profile 67%,
Vo2max not
stated
- - - - 4k MPO +
0.3%
30-second
power not
stated
1k MPO
no change
PPO
during
ICE test
-0.1%
LT +1.7%
oxygen cost
+0.3%
Ronnestad
et al. (27) E: 11 M cyclists
151+/-13hrs ET;
Vo2max 66.8
ml.kg
-1
min
-1
FW/Machine
s
3 x 4-
10RM 2/wk
12
weeks
P
185min
sub-
maximal
cycling
@44%
W.max:
Last hour
Vo2
+2.2%*α
HR +
6.5%*/*α
LT
+14.9%*/*
α
5-min TT
MPO
after
185.min
sub max
cycling
+7.2%* /
*α
PPO
during
ICE test
+4.2%
V02max
+3..3+/-1.4%
LT + 7.1%
+26
%*/*
α
C: 9 cyclists (7
M 2 F)
138+/-13hrs ET;
Vo2max 65.9
ml.kg
-1
min
-1
Last hour
Vo2 +1.9%
HR +0.3%
LT +11.3%
5 min TT
MPO
decreased
PPO
during
ICE test
+1.9%
Vo2max + 6.0%
LT +3.1%
No
chan
ge
Ronnestad
et al. (28) E: 11 M cyclists
151+/-13hrs ET;
Vo2max 66.8
ml.kg
-1
min
-1
FW/Machine
s
3 x 4-
10RM 2/wk
12
weeks
P
40min TT
MPO
+6.0%*
Wingate
30-second
test:
MPO
+1.7%
PPO +
9.4%*/*α
ICE:
V02max +
3..3%*
W/max + 4.3%*
RER No
change
HR No change
LT+ 7.1%
IRM
+21.
2%*/
*α
C: 9 cyclists (7
M 2 F)
138+/-13hrs ET;
Vo2max 65.9
ml.kg
-1
min
-1
MPO
+4.6%* MPO -
1.9%
PPO -
0.5%
ICE:
Vo2max +6.0%
*
W/max +1.9*%
RER No change
HR No change
LT+ 3.7%
No
chan
ge
Sunde et E. FW 4 x 4RM 3/wk 8 weeks CE at 70% TTE at VO2max +0.7% 1RM
Mohsen Karami
et al Euro. J. Sports Exerc. Sci., 2012, 1 (3):90-102
______________________________________________________________________________
97
Scholars Research Library
al. (32) 8 cyclists (7 M 1
F)
273+/-288min
ET; Vo2max
63.4 ml.kg
-1
min
-
1
P V02
max*/*α
MAP +
6.4%*/*α
HR +2.7%
WE +
4.7%*/*α
MAP +
17.2%*
LT+ 2.02%
+14.
2%*/
*α
C: 5 cyclists (3
M 2 F)
588+/-208min
ET; Vo2max
58.7 ml.kg
-1
min
-
1
- - - - CE at 70%
V02 max *
MAP +
0.4%
HR +0.7%
WE +
1.3%*
TTE at
MAP +
5%
VO2max -0.2%
LT +1.5%
1
RM
+1.9
%
Key : * = statistically significant within group effect; *α statistically significant between group effect; APO = Average Power Output; C =
Control; CE = Cycling Economy; DE = Delta Efficiency; ET = Endurance Training; E = Experimental; F = Female; FW = Free Weights; GE
= Gross Efficiency; HR = Heart Rate; HRmax = Heart Rate Maximum; Incl = include; ICE = Incremental Cycle Ergometer; LT = Lactate
Threshold; M = Male; MAP = Mean Average Power; MPO = Mean Power Output; NP = Non Periodized; P = Periodized; Pmax = Power
Maximum; PPO = Peak Power Output; RM = Repetition Maximum; TT = Time Trial; TTE = Time To Exhaustion; VT1 = Ventilatory Threshold
1; VT2 = Ventilatory Threshold 2; WE = Work Efficiency
Level II Studies
Five randomized controlled clinical trials were identified that investigated the influence of concurrent training on
determinants of road cycling performance in highly trained road cyclists [47] (Bastiaans) [48] (Bishop) [41]
(Hausswirth) [44] (Levin) [49] (Paton) [50] (Sunde). Compared to cyclists who performed endurance training alone,
cyclists who performed strength training in addition to their normal endurance training demonstrated significant
improvements in determinants of road cycling performance such as lactate power profile, oxygen cost, exercise
efficiency, cycling economy, and work efficiency at 70% of VO
2
max [49] (Paton) [50] (Sunde). Paton and Hopkins [49]
also demonstrated improvements in both peak and mean power output values during 30-second, one-kilometre and four-
kilometre time trials. Similarly, Levin et al. [44] recorded improvements in peak power outputs during the final three
sprints in a 30-kilometre simulated road cycle race. Significant reductions in average heart rate and time to exhaustion at
maximal aerobic power were also observed within the concurrent training groups in the Hausswirth et al. [41] and Sunde
et al. [50] studies, although these changes were not significant when compared to the control groups.
Level III Studies
Three non-randomized controlled trials were identified that investigated the influence of concurrent training on
determinants of road cycling performance in highly trained road cyclists [47] (Bastiaans) [51] (Ronnestad) [52]
(Ronnestad). Compared to cyclists who performed endurance training alone, cyclists who performed strength training in
addition to their normal endurance training demonstrated significant improvements in determinants of road cycling
performance such as heart rate, blood lactate values, and oxygen cost during the last hour of a 185-minute constant
workload endurance cycling test [51] (Ronnestad). Strength trained cyclists also demonstrated statistically superior mean
power outputs during a five minute all out time trial completed at the conclusion of the 185-minute cycle test [51]
(Ronnestad). Baastians et al. [47] also demonstrated significant improvements in maximal and average power outputs
during a one hour time trial as well as a 30-second performance test, although these changes were not significant when
compared to the control group that performed endurance training alone. Similarly, Ronnestad et al. [52] observed
significant improvements in mean power output during a 40-kilometre time trial, and in both maximum power and
VO
2
max during an incremental cycle ergometer test in the combined strength and endurance trained cyclists, although
these improvements were also not statistically significant when compared to the control group.
Level IV Study
One prospective quasi-experimental trial involving no control group was identified that examined whether adding
strength training to the training programmes of highly trained road cyclists produced positive or negative effects on
determinants of road cycling performance [42] (Hickson). Significant within group improvements were demonstrated in
time to exhaustion at both 80-85% VO
2
max, as well as at maximum work rates.
Grade Recommendations
Based on the results summarized in Table 2, a number of recommendations are proposed:
Mohsen Karami
et al Euro. J. Sports Exerc. Sci., 2012, 1 (3):90-102
______________________________________________________________________________
98
Scholars Research Library
Grade A Recommendations:
Since none of the studies were randomized controlled clinical trials involving more than 100 participants, no Grade A
recommendations could be made [46] (Sackett).
Grade B Recommendations:
Concurrent strength and endurance training in highly trained road cyclists may significantly improve:
Lactate power profiles, oxygen consumption/cost, exercise efficiency, cycling economy, and work efficiency at 70%
of VO
2
max [49] (Paton) [50] (Sunde);
Peak and mean power outputs during sprints and 30-second efforts, and time trials lasting between 1 and 4 kilometers
[44] (Levin) [49] (Paton);
Grade C Recommendations:
Concurrent strength and endurance training in highly trained road cyclists may also significantly improve:
Mean and average power outputs during time trials ranging from 40 to 60 minutes [47] (Bastiaans) [52] (Ronnestad)
[51] (Ronnestad);
Maximal work rates and average heart rates during incremental cycle ergometer testing, and time to exhaustion at
maximal aerobic power or 80-85% VO
2
max [48] (Bishop) [41] (Hausswirth) [42] (Hickson) [ 52] (Ronnestad) [51]
(Ronnestad) [50] (Sunde).
DISCUSSION
Utilising the rules of evidence described by Sackett [46], some evidence has been identified to support the use of
concurrent training in the periodized training programmes of highly trained road cyclists. While no Grade A evidence
currently exists, Grade B evidence indicates that in highly trained road cyclists, concurrent training can significantly
improve measures of road cycle racing performance such as mean power outputs during time trials ranging between one
km and one hour, and anaerobic power as measured by peak power during sprint (30 seconds) efforts. These
improvements are possibly caused by improving physiological determinants of performance such as the lactate power
profile, and cycling or exercise economy. There is also weaker evidence (i.e. Grade C) that concurrent training improves
time to exhaustion at maximal aerobic power. In the context of the demands of road cycle racing, where cyclists are
often required to produce high aerobic and anaerobic power outputs, and short sustained supra-maximal levels of
muscular force throughout the race, improvements in these measures may be highly significant.
To measure the effects of concurrent training on endurance performance, incremental cycle ergometer tests, time to
exhaustion, and either distance or time based time trials were the most common outcome measures used in the studies. A
number of studies also included analysis of short term power (i.e. 30-second effort mean and peak power) [47]
(Bastiaans) [49] (Paton) [52] (Ronnestad). It has been suggested that the most important consideration in selecting the
test used to evaluate endurance performance in cyclists, is the relationship between competitive performance and
performance in the test [49] (Paton), Paton and Hopkins [53] suggest that currently the best two measures available for
predicting competitive time trial performance are peak power measured in a cycle ergometer incremental test (r = 0.99)
[54] (Balmer); and time or mean power in a simulated 40-kilometre time trial (r = 0.88-0.98) [55] (Coyle) [56] (Palmer).
By comparison, anaerobic measures such as 30-second testing are less reliable, with co-efficient of variation ranging
between 2.2-5.4% [57] (Coggan) [58] (Weinstain). Therefore, the results of studies using time to exhaustion or short
term performance indicators may not be as valid or reliable as studies that evaluating performance using a time trial [48]
(Bishop). It is also clear that most measures of cycling performance in laboratory tests have random errors 2%, with
this error increasing to 3-4% where tests last several hours [59] (Hopkins). Where performance enhancements of 0.3-
0.5% (0.5%-1%) of the typical variation between events make a difference to a highly trained cyclist, the outcome
measures used in these studies may be unreliable at tracking the smallest changes in performance that matter to this
category of elite athletes [53] (Paton).
Where time to exhaustion was used as an outcome measure; significant between and within group improvements were
observed. For example, compared to cyclists performing endurance training alone, a 17.2% improvement in time to
exhaustion at mean average power output was observed in cyclists who performed a combination of free and machine
weight exercises (4 x 4RM) three times per week for eight weeks (31). Similarly, Hickson et al. [42] observed an 11%
within group increase in time to exhaustion at maximal work rates, and an 18.8% improvement in the time spent cycling
at 80-85% VO2max, after a single group of cyclists performed a combination of free and machine weight exercises (3-5
x 5RM) three times per week for ten weeks. Although longer cycling tests introduce greater chance of random error, the
improvements in time to exhaustion that occurred during progressively longer testing underscores the relevance of
completing prolonged tests to better simulate road cycling in studies that evaluate the effectiveness of different training
methods [51] (Ronnestad). By comparison, the results of studies using time trials to assess the effect of concurrent
strength and endurance training on cycling performance were less conclusive. Although between group improvements’
Mohsen Karami
et al Euro. J. Sports Exerc. Sci., 2012, 1 (3):90-102
______________________________________________________________________________
99
Scholars Research Library
ranging between 7.2-8.7% were noted in mean power outputs in short duration time trials (ranging between one and five
km); and within group improvements of 6.0% and 7.9% were observed in longer duration time trials of 40 and 60
minutes [47] (Bastiaans) [49] (Paton) [52] (Ronnestad) [51] (Ronnestad), three studies failed to demonstrate
improvements in time trial performance following concurrent training [48] (Bishop) [41] (Hausswirth) [44] (Levin).
However, Bishop et al.’s [48] sample included only female participants, and it is possible that gender is a factor
influencing whether strength training improves endurance performance in highly trained cyclists; and the 30-kilometre
time trial used by Levin et al. [44] including intermittent sprints, has not been validated as an outcome measure for
endurance cycling performance.
Where mean or peak power were recorded during short anaerobic (30 seconds) efforts, improvements ranging between
4.3-9.4% were observed following performance of concurrent training compared to endurance training alone [47]
(Bastiaans) [49] (Paton) [51] (Ronnestad). The largest improvements in anaerobic power outputs (9% and 9.4%) were
observed following performance of three sessions per week of three sets of maximal effort explosive jumps and step ups
over 4-5 weeks, and two sessions of periodized free and machine weight (4-10RM) exercises performed over 12 weeks
[49] (Paton) [51] (Ronnestad). Paton and Hopkins [49] suggest that the improvements observed may be due to increases
in the firing frequency of muscle motor units from strength training, leading to increases in muscle peak force and rate of
force development. These changes in short term cycling power output may be highly significant in the context of the
demands of a road cycle race where cyclists are often required to produce high levels of peak and mean power for short
durations when climbing hills, surging and in the final sprint. Together with the improvements observed in time to
exhaustion and both short and longer time trial measures, these results suggest concurrent training may positively
influence both the aerobic and anaerobic determinants of road cycling performance.
As noted, peak power output (“PPO”) during incremental cycle ergometer testing is also a reliable measure for
evaluating the performance of elite cyclists (co-efficient of variation of 0.9%) [59] (Balmer) [60] (Balmer). However,
four of the six studies that evaluated PPO in an incremental cycle ergometer test failed to identify an improvement in
this measure after cyclists performed concurrent training programmes [47] (Bastiaans) [41] (Hausswirth) [44] (Levin)
[51] (Ronnestad). The 4.3% within group improvement in PPO observed by Ronnestad et al. [52] was also not
significant compared to the 1.9% improvement observed in cyclists performing endurance training alone. The only study
observing a between group improvement was Paton & Hopkins [49]. The 6.8% increase in PPO observed is large in the
context of highly trained cyclists, where enhancements of the magnitude of 0.5-1.0% are considered significant.
However, this improvement in performance cannot be attributed to the effects of strength training alone, since subject’s
alternated explosive resistance training exercises with 30-second sprints on the bike.
The physiological adaptations underlying the improvements in the performance measures identified in this review are
not completely clear. Power outputs corresponding to set lactate inflection points (i.e. 1mM or 4 mM) have commonly
been suggested to be important determinants of endurance cycling performance [55] (Coyle). The results of this review
suggests that concurrent training may improve endurance cycling performance by increasing mean power outputs at the
anaerobic threshold and/or other markers of blood lactate accumulation. This potentially reflects increased capacity for
high intensity performance such as mean power output over the course of prolonged road races or time trial compared
with endurance training alone [61] (Jackson) [52] (Ronnestad) [51] (Ronnestad) [50] (Sunde). Improvements in
anaerobic threshold-type measures following concurrent strength and endurance training may be caused by alterations in
muscle fiber recruitment patterns that increase the lactate threshold and reduce the reliance on glycogenesis [60]
(Balmer) [42] (Hickson) [52] (Ronnestad) [50] (Sunde). Hickson et al. [42] also suggests that an improvement in lactate
profiling occurs by delaying recruitment of the more glycolitic type II muscle fibers, allowing cyclists to push greater
loads for the same blood lactate response. Since type I muscle fibers are more efficient than type II fibers when
performing sub-maximal exercise, increasing the relative recruitment of and the strength of type I fibers may delay
activation of less economical type II fibers, resulting in reduced blood lactate levels for the same absolute workload [52]
(Ronnestad). The increased strength and/or rate of force development resulting from concurrent strength and endurance
training may also improve short-term power output and result in improved performance in sprints performed either in
isolation or embedded in a simulated time trial [44] (Levin) [50] (Sunde). However, it is unclear if these effects reflect
primarily neural or morphological adaptations to strength training.
There are a number of limitations associated with this review. The Grade B evidence identified is based on only five
studies, and the strength of the evidence identified in the literature is limited due to a number of design and
methodological limitations. For example, four of the studies noting the benefits of strength training did not randomize
subjects into either an intervention or control group [47] (Bastiaans) [42] (Hickson) [52] (Ronnestad) [51] (Ronnestad).
There are also a number of potential confounding variables that provide alternative explanations for the improvements
seen. For example, participants in seven of the studies continued to perform high intensity efforts on the bike during the
intervention period [47] (Bastiaans) [48] (Bishop) [41] (Hausswirth) [44] (Levin) [49] (Paton) [52] (Ronnestad) [51]
(Ronnestad). Where participants continued to perform high intensity intervals or maximal efforts on the bike during the
Mohsen Karami
et al Euro. J. Sports Exerc. Sci., 2012, 1 (3):90-102
______________________________________________________________________________
100
Scholars Research Library
intervention period, it is impossible to attribute endurance performance improvements to the influence of strength
training alone. Paton and Hopkins [49] was also the only study to evaluate concurrent training during the competitive
phase of the season. Substantial improvements in performance and changes to related physiological measures are likely
to occur as athletes’ progress from base to competitive training [3] (Paton). It is therefore unlikely that improvements
observed when studies take place in off-season phases would be of the same magnitude if performed during the athletes’
competitive phase.
Similarly, where studies added strength training to normal endurance training, it is possible that higher volumes of
training, rather than increases in leg strength, are responsible for the improvements in endurance performance observed
[48] (Balmer) [42] (Hickson) [44] (Levin) [52] (Ronnestad) [51] (Ronnestad) [50] (Sunde). Further, overtraining and
residual fatigue associated with adding strength training to the normal training programmes of endurance road cyclists
may be a factor limiting physiological adaptations when performed over longer periods of time than performed in these
studies [61] (Jackson). Where high training loads are performed without adequate recovery, impaired performance may
result from the continued disturbance to autonomic balance [62] (Billat). It is also interesting that the significant
improvements in endurance performance parameters noted in higher level competitive road were not observed when
strength training was performed by lower level club cyclists, female cyclists, or trained male cyclists/triathletes [48]
(Bishop) [41] (Hausswirth) [44] (Levin). It is therefore possible that the performance/training status of a cyclist may be a
significant factor in determining whether they are likely to respond positively to the addition of strength training to their
programme. Specifically, lower level cyclists may gain a sufficient training stimulus by performing endurance cycling
alone; whereas high-level cyclists who have a long training history of high volume endurance cycling training may need
to incorporate additional forms of training (e.g. strength training) if they wish to address their relative weak points that
are hindering further gains in performance.
CONCLUSION
Although the short term duration of the studies identified does not allow a definitive answer to the question whether
adding strength training to the periodized programmes of highly trained road cyclists is beneficial to performance in
the long-term, the results of this review suggest that the inclusion of strength training in their overall training
programmes may enhance performance in a range of highly demanding road cycling events. By increasing lower
body strength and power, highly trained road cyclists may improve their anaerobic energy production potential
during short hill climbs, repeated surges in pace during the race, and in the final sprint. It is therefore suggested that
high level road cyclists perform some form of strength training to improve these sport specific performance
determinants. This may be even more relevant where cyclists are unable to perform high intensity training on their
bike due to inclement weather or where other extrinsic environmental constraints exist.
Future research should be conducted to determine what is the best form(s) of strength training for these athletes, and
how best to incorporate such training into their annual periodized training plan. Factors such as the optimal strength
training frequency, intensity, duration, and length of recovery periods etc, and the timing of this form of training in
relation to other forms of on the bike training sessions and competition events, should be examined. Investigations
into whether strength training should be added to or replace on the bike training sessions is also important, since
identifying optimal training volume/loads will assist in reducing the risks of overtraining that result from the
continued disturbance of autonomic balance. However, based on the research evaluated which involved training
durations of a minimum of 8–12 weeks and 3-4 sets of between 3-6RM loads, maximal strength training using high
loads and few repetitions, emphasising neural adaptation rather than muscle hypertrophy, may be the most effective
method of resistance training to enhance road cycling performance. Although explosive or plyometric resistance
training also significantly improved short term performance measures e.g. 30-second power output and mean power
output in one and four km time trials, it is unclear if such benefits would transfer to longer duration endurance
performance due to the limited role of the stretch-shorten cycle during predominantly concentric activities like
cycling. This also raises the question of whether lower body strength training for cyclists should be performed with
or without a prior eccentric contraction? It has also been suggested that cyclists must perform a ‘conversion phase’
so that gains in maximum strength are converted into improvements in muscular endurance of longer duration [63]
(Bompa). The exact specifications of the periodization plan to convert maximal strength to strength endurance
would therefore also be helpful in identifying the optimal strength training prescription that would provide
transferable benefits to highly trained road cyclists.
Mohsen Karami
et al Euro. J. Sports Exerc. Sci., 2012, 1 (3):90-102
______________________________________________________________________________
101
Scholars Research Library
Bullet Point Summary
In highly trained road cyclists, concurrent training significantly improves measures of road racing performance such as
time to exhaustion at maximal aerobic power, mean power outputs during time trials and anaerobic power as measured by peak
power during sprint (30 seconds) efforts.
Two sessions per week of maximal strength training for 8–12 weeks using high loads and few repetitions (3-4 sets of
between 3-6RM), emphasising neural adaptation rather than muscle hypertrophy, may be the most effective method of resistance
training to enhance road cycling performance.
Improvements in road-cycling performance are possibly caused by improving physiological determinants of performance
such as the lactate power profile, and cycling or exercise economy.
Future research is necessary to determine the best form(s) of strength training and how best to incorporate such training
programmes including factors such as the optimal strength training frequency, intensity, duration, and length of recovery periods etc,
and the timing of this form of training in relation to other forms of on the bike training sessions and competition events
REFERENCES
[1] AE Jeukenderup, NP Craig, JA Hawley, Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 2000, 3, 414-433.
[2] L Lucia, J Pardo, A Durantez, International Journal of Sports Medicine, 1998, 342-248.
[3] CD Paton, WG Hopkins, Sports Science, 2004, 8, 25-40.
[4] B Fernandez-Garcia, J Perez-Landauce, M Rodriguez-Alons, N Terrados, Medicine & Science in Sports &
Exercise, 2000, 32, 1002-1006.
[5] A Lucia, J Hoyos, J Chicharro, Sports Medicine, 2001, 31, 325-337.
[6] S Padilla, I Mujika, J Orbananos, F Angulo, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2000, 32, 850-856.
[7] DR Bassett, ET Howley, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2000, 32, 70-84.
[8] EW Faria, DL Parker, IE Faria, Sports Medicine, 2001, 35, 285-312.
[9] JA Hawley, Applied Physiology, Nutrition & Metabolism, 2009, 34, 355-361.
[10] HGL Rauch, JA Hawley, TD Noakes, SC Dennis, S.C. Pflugers Arch, 1998, 436, 211-219.
[11] S Vogt, L Heinrich, YO Schumacher, A Blum, K Roecker, HH Dickhuth, A Schmid, Medicine & Science in
Sports & Exercise, 2006, 38, 147-151.
[12] TR Ebert, DT Martin, B Stephens, RT Withers, International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance,
2006, 1, 324-335.
[13] PB Laursen, SE Chiswell, JA Callaghan, Strength and Conditioning Journal, 2005, 27, 50-55.
[14] MJ Quod, DT Martin, JC Martin, PB Laursen, International Journal of Sports Medicine, 2010, 31, 397-401.
[15] GS Palmer, JA Hawley, SC Dennis, TD Noakes, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 1994, 26, 1278-
1283.
[16] PB Laursen, DG Jenkins, Sports Medicine, 2002, 32, 53-73.
[17] PB Laursen, Scandanavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 2010, 20, 1-10.
[18] J Hoff, J Helgrud, U Wisloff, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 1999, 31, 870-877.
[19] H Osteras, J Helgrud, J Hoff, European Journal of Applied Physiology, 2002, 88, 255-263.
[20] O Storen, J Helgrud, EM Stoa, J Hoff, J. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2008, 25, 191-200.
[21] EA Hansen, T Raastad, J Hallen, European Journal of Applied Physiology, 2007, 101, 414-426.
[22] DJ Loveless, CL Weber, LJ Haseler, DA Schneider, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2005, 37, 1231-
1236.
[23] EJ Marcinick, J Potts, G Schlabach, S Will, P Dawson, BF Hurley, Medicine Science in Sports and Exercise,
1991, 23, 739-743.
[24] C Minahan, C. Wood, European Journal of Applied Physiology, 2008, 102, 659-666.
[25] L Yamamoto, JF Klau, DJ Casa, WJ Kraemer, LE Armstrong, CM Maresh, Journal of Strength Conditioning
Research, 2010, 24, 560-6.
[26] GA Nader, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2006, 38, 1965-1970.
[27] AC Fry, Sports Medicine, 2004, 34, 663-679.
[28] PA Tesch, PV Komi, K Hakkinen, International Journal of Sports Medicine, 1987, 66-69.
[29] VG Coffey, JA Hawley, Sports Medicine, 2007, 37, 737-763.
[30] J Holloszy, Journal of Applied Physiology, 1984, 56, 832-838.
[31] CT Putman, X Xu, E Gillies, IM Maclean, GJ, Bell, European Journal of Applied Physiology, 2004, 92, 376-
384.
[32] SE Always, JD Macdougal, DG Sale, JR Sutton, AJ McComas, Journal of Applied Physiology, 1988, 64, 1114-
1120.
[33] PD Chilibeck, DG Syrotuik, GJ Bell, European Journal of Applied Physiology, 1999, 80, 604-609.
[34] PA Tesch, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 1988, 20, S132-S134.
Mohsen Karami
et al Euro. J. Sports Exerc. Sci., 2012, 1 (3):90-102
______________________________________________________________________________
102
Scholars Research Library
[35] MH Stone, WA Sands, J Carlock, S Callan, D Dickie, K Daigle J Cotton, SL Smith, M Hartman, Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research, 2004, 18, 878-884.
[36] EF Coyle, LS Sidossis, JF Horowitz, JD Beltz, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 1992, 24, 782-788.
[37] J Horowitz, S Sidossis, E COYLE, International Journal of Sports Medicine, 1994, 15, 152-157.
[38] GR Adams, BM Hather, KM Baldwin, GA Dudley, Journal of Applied Physiology, 1993, 74, 911 915.
[39] JL Andersen P Aagaard, Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 2010, 20, 32-38.
[40] BM Hather, PA Tesch, P Buchanan, GA Dudley, Physiology Scandanavia, 1991, 143, 177-185.
[41] C Hausswirth, S Argentin, F Biezen, Y Le Meur, Y, A Couturier, J Brisswalter, J. Journal of
Electromyography and Kinesiology, 2010, 20, 330-339.
[42] RC Hickson, BA Dvoral, EM Gorostiaga, TT Kurowiski, C Foster, Journal of Applied Physiology, 1998, 65,
2285-2290.
[43] L Paavolainen, K Hakkinen, I Hamalainen, AM Nummela, H Rusko, Journal of Applied Physiology, 86, 1999,
1527-1533.
[44] GT Levin, MR McGuighan, PB Laursen, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 2009, 23, 2280-2286.
[45] A Megens, SR Harris, Physical Therapy, 1998, 78, 1302-1311.
[46] DL Sackett, Chest, 1989, 95, 2S-4S.
[47] JJ Bastiaans ABJP Van Diemen, AE Jeunderup, European Journal of Applied Physiology, 2001, 86, 79-84.
[48] D Bishop, DG Jenkins, LT MacKinnon, M McEniery, MF Carey, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise,
1999, 31, 886-891.
[49] CD Paton, WG Hopkins, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2005, 19, 826 – 830.
[50] A Sunde, O Storen, M Bjerkaas, MH Larsen, J Hoff, J Helgerud, Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 2010, 24, 2157-2165.
[51] BR Ronnestad, EA Hansen, T Raastad, T. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 2009, 9, 1-
10.
[52] BR Ronnestad, EA Hansen, T Raastad, European Journal of Applied Physiology, 2010, 108, 965-975.
[53] CD Paton, WG Hopkins, Sports Medicine, 2001, 31, 489-496.
[54] J Balmer, RC Davison, SR Bird Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2000, 32, 1790-1793.
[55] EF Coyle, ME Feltner, SA Kautz, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 1991, 23, 93-107.
[56] GS Palmer, SC Dennis, TD Noakes, International Journal of Sports Medicine, 1996, 293 – 298.
[57] AR Coggan, DL Costill, International Journal of Sports Medicine, 1984, 5, 142-145.
[58] Y Weinstain, C Bediz, R Dotan, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 1998, 30, 1456-1460.
[59] WG Hopkins, EJ Schabort, JA Hawley, Sports Medicine, 2001, 31, 211-234.
[60] J Balmer, RCR Davison, S Bird, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2000, 32, 1485-1490.
[61] NP Jackson, MS Hickey, RF Rieser, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2007, 21, 289-295.
[62] V Billat, B Flechet, B Petit, G Muriaux JP Koralsztein, J.P. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 1999, 31,
156-163.
[63] TO Bompa, MC Carrera, Periodisation Training for Sports (2nd Ed.), Human Kinetics Champaign, Illinois,
2005.
... In fact, the possibility of improving the performance of endurance athletes through resistance training has been contemplated in rowing (Izquierdo-Gabarren et al., 2010), cycling (Rønnestad, Hansen, Hollan, & Ellefsen, 2014), cross-country skiing (Rønnestad, Kojedal, Losnegard, Kvamme, & Raastad, 2012) and running (Ramírez-Campillo et al., 2014;Sedano, Marín, Cuadrado, & Redondo, 2013). The research carried out in this field has been synthesized into various reviews, both systematic (Beattie, Kenny, Lyons, & Carson, 2014;Ellery, Keogh, & Sheerin, 2012;García-Pallarés & Izquierdo, 2011;Yamamoto et al., 2008Yamamoto et al., , 2010 and non-systematic (Aagaard & Andersen, 2010;Bazyler, Abbott, Bellon, Taber, & Stone, 2015;Rønnestad & Mujika, 2013); these have suggested that strength training could contribute to improved performance in endurance athletes. ...
Article
The aim of this work was to identify, synthesize and evaluate the results of randomized controlled trials examining the effects of resistance training on performance indicators in previously trained endurance runners. A database search was carried out in PubMed, Science Direct, OvidSPMedLine, Wiley, Web of Science, ProQuest and Google Scholar. In accordance with the PRISMA checklist, 18 published articles dated prior to May 2016 involving 321 endurance runners were reviewed using the PEDro scale. Resistance training led to general improvements in muscular strength, running economy, muscle power factors, and direct performance in distances between 1,500 and 10,000 m. Such improvements were not accompanied by a significant increase in body mass or signs of overtraining. However, improvements did not occur in all cases, suggesting that they might depend on the specific characteristics of the resistance training applied. Although current evidence supports the effectiveness of resistance training to improve performance in already trained endurance runners, the methodological inconsistencies identified suggest that the results should be interpreted with caution. Future studies ought to investigate the benefits of resistance training in endurance runners while considering the existence of possible differentiated effects based on the specific characteristics of the resistance training carried out.
Article
To assess the relative biological and technological variability of anaerobic testing, 27 male subjects performed either 30- or 60-s sprint bouts on a hydraulically braked Fitron ergometer or timed rides to exhaustion at 125% VO2max on an electrically braked Collins ergometer. Each subject performed four trials within a 4-week period, with blood drawn 10 min post-exercise for lactate determination. Total variability was estimated from the mean coefficient of variation (CV = SD/means X 100%) for each variable. There were no significant differences across the four trials of each test for any of the variables measured (mean power or ride time, peak torque, fatiguability, or blood lactate). There were also no significant differences in test variabilities. The mean CV of performance were 5.4%, 5.4%, and 5.3% for the 30-s Fitron, 60-s Fitron, and exhaustive tests, respectively. The magnitude of this variability is nearly identical to that reported for tests of aerobic fitness. Only 10%-30% of the variability was of technological origin. This variability must be considered in the interpretation of experiments utilizing anaerobic performance tests.
Article
Although many training variables contribute to the performance, cellular and molecular adaptations to resistance exercise, relative intensity (% 1 repetition maximum [%1RM]) appears to be an important factor. This review summarises and analyses data from numerous resistance exercise training studies that have monitored percentage fibre type, fibre type cross-sectional areas, percentage cross-sectional areas, and myosin heavy chain (MHC) isoform expression. In general, relative intensity appears to account for 18-35% of the variance for the hypertrophy response to resistance exercise. On the other hand, fibre type and MHC transitions were not related to the relative intensity used for training. When competitive lifters were compared, those typically utilising the heaviest loads (> or =90% 1RM), that is weightlifters and powerlifters, exhibited a preferential hypertrophy of type II fibres when compared with body builders who appear to equally hypertrophy both type I and type II fibres. These data suggest that maximal hypertrophy occurs with loads from 80-95% 1RM.
  • Ae Jeukenderup
  • J A Craig
  • Hawley
AE Jeukenderup, NP Craig, JA Hawley, Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 2000, 3, 414-433.
  • L Lucia
  • Pardo
  • Durantez
L Lucia, J Pardo, A Durantez, International Journal of Sports Medicine, 1998, 342-248.
  • Cd Paton
  • Hopkins
CD Paton, WG Hopkins, Sports Science, 2004, 8, 25-40.
  • B Fernandez-Garcia
  • Perez-Landauce
  • N Rodriguez-Alons
  • Terrados
B Fernandez-Garcia, J Perez-Landauce, M Rodriguez-Alons, N Terrados, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2000, 32, 1002-1006.
  • A Lucia
  • Hoyos
  • Chicharro
A Lucia, J Hoyos, J Chicharro, Sports Medicine, 2001, 31, 325-337.
  • S Padilla
  • Mujika
  • Orbananos
  • Angulo
S Padilla, I Mujika, J Orbananos, F Angulo, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2000, 32, 850-856.
  • Dr
  • Bassett
  • Howley
DR Bassett, ET Howley, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2000, 32, 70-84.