Endurance and strength training effects on physiological and muscular parameters during prolonged cycling

Concurrent Strength and Endurance Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Impact of Sex and Training Status

BACKGROUND

Many sports require maximal strength and endurance performance. Concurrent strength and endurance training can lead to suboptimal training adaptations. However, how adaptations differ between males and females is currently unknown. Additionally, current training status may affect training adaptations.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess sex-specific differences in adaptations in strength, power, muscle hypertrophy, and maximal oxygen consumption ( V ˙ O2max) to concurrent strength and endurance training in healthy adults. Second, we investigated how training adaptations are influenced by strength and endurance training status.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, and a Cochrane risk of bias was evaluated. ISI Web of science, PubMed/MEDLINE, and SPORTDiscus databases were searched using the following inclusion criteria: healthy adults aged 18-50 years, intervention period of ≥ 4 weeks, and outcome measures were defined as upper- and lower-body strength, power, hypertrophy, and/or V ˙ O2max. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model and reported in standardized mean differences.

RESULTS

In total, 59 studies with 1346 participants were included. Concurrent training showed blunted lower-body strength adaptations in males, but not in females (male: - 0.43, 95% confidence interval [- 0.64 to - 0.22], female: 0.08 [- 0.34 to 0.49], group difference: P = 0.03). No sex differences were observed for changes in upper-body strength (P = 0.67), power (P = 0.37), or V ˙ O2max (P = 0.13). Data on muscle hypertrophy were insufficient to draw any conclusions. For training status, untrained but not trained or highly trained endurance athletes displayed lower V ˙ O2max gains with concurrent training (P = 0.04). For other outcomes, no differences were found between untrained and trained individuals, both for strength and endurance training status.

CONCLUSIONS

Concurrent training results in small interference for lower-body strength adaptations in males, but not in females. Untrained, but not trained or highly trained endurance athletes demonstrated impaired improvements in V ˙ O2max following concurrent training. More studies on females and highly strength-trained and endurance-trained athletes are warranted.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO: CRD42022370894.

Durability is improved by both low and high intensity endurance training

Introduction: This is one of the first intervention studies to examine how low- (LIT) and high-intensity endurance training (HIT) affect durability, defined as 'time of onset and magnitude of deterioration in physiological-profiling characteristics over time during prolonged exercise'. Methods: Sedentary and recreationally active men (n = 16) and women (n = 19) completed either LIT (average weekly training time 6.8 ± 0.7 h) or HIT (1.6 ± 0.2 h) cycling for 10 weeks. Durability was analyzed before and after the training period from three factors during 3-h cycling at 48% of pretraining maximal oxygen uptake (VO_2max): 1) by the magnitude and 2) onset of drifts (i.e. gradual change in energy expenditure, heart rate, rate of perceived exertion, ventilation, left ventricular ejection time, and stroke volume), 3) by the 'physiological strain', defined to be the absolute responses of heart rate and its variability, lactate, and rate of perceived exertion. Results: When all three factors were averaged the durability was improved similarly (time x group p = 0.42) in both groups (LIT: p = 0.03, g = 0.49; HIT: p = 0.01, g = 0.62). In the LIT group, magnitude of average of drifts and their onset did not reach statistically significance level of p < 0.05 (magnitude: 7.7 ± 6.8% vs. 6.3 ± 6.0%, p = 0.09, g = 0.27; onset: 106 ± 57 min vs. 131 ± 59 min, p = 0.08, g = 0.58), while averaged physiological strain improved (p = 0.01, g = 0.60). In HIT, both magnitude and onset decreased (magnitude: 8.8 ± 7.9% vs. 5.4 ± 6.7%, p = 0.03, g = 0.49; onset: 108 ± 54 min vs. 137 ± 57 min, p = 0.03, g = 0.61), and physiological strain improved (p = 0.005, g = 0.78). VO_2max increased only after HIT (time x group p < 0.001, g = 1.51). Conclusion: Durability improved similarly by both LIT and HIT based on reduced physiological drifts, their postponed onsets, and changes in physiological strain. Despite durability enhanced among untrained people, a 10-week intervention did not alter drifts and their onsets in a large amount, even though it attenuated physiological strain.

Are We Able to Match Non Sport-Specific Strength Training with Endurance Sports? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis to Plan the Best Training Programs for Endurance Athletes

Non-sport-specific strength training is a way to increase endurance performance; however, which kind of exercise (maximal, plyometric, explosive or resistance strength training) gives the best results is still under debate. Scientific publications were analyzed according to the PRISMA checklist and statement. The initial search yielded 500 studies, 17 of which were included in this review using the PEDro Scale. Maximal strength training boosted the ability to express strength particularly in cross-country skiing and cycling, increasing endurance performance, measured as a decrease of the endurance performance tests. In running, explosive strength training did not generate advantages, whereas plyometric strength training led to an improvement in the endurance performance tests and work economy. In running it was possible to compare different types of non sport-specific strength training and the plyometric one resulted the best training methodology to enhance performance. However, studies on other sports only investigated the effects of maximal strength training. It resulted more effective in cross-country skiing (although only one study was eligible according to the inclusion criteria) and in the cycling component of the triathlon and, by contrast, induced modest effects on cyclists’ performance, suggesting different type of strength would probably be more effective. In conclusion, each sport might optimize performance by using appropriate non sport-specific strength training, which, however, should be studied individually.

Strength Training Improves Exercise Economy in Triathletes During a Simulated Triathlon

PURPOSE

The completion of concurrent strength and endurance training can improve exercise economy in cyclists and runners; however, the efficacy of strength training (ST) implementation to improve economy in long-distance (LD) triathletes has not yet been investigated. The purpose of this study was to investigate physiological outcomes in LD triathletes when ST was completed concurrently to endurance training.

METHODS

A total of 25 LD triathletes were randomly assigned to either 26 weeks of concurrent endurance and ST (n = 14) or endurance training only (n = 11). The ST program progressed from moderate (8-12 repetitions, ≤75% of 1-repetition maximum, weeks 0-12) to heavy loads (1-6 repetitions, ≥85% of 1-repetition maximum, weeks 14-26). Physiological and performance indicators (cycling and running economy, swim time, blood lactate, and heart rate) were measured during a simulated triathlon (1500-m swim, 60-min cycle, and 20-min run) at weeks 0, 14, and 26. Maximal strength and anthropometric measures (skinfolds and body mass) were also collected at these points.

RESULTS

The endurance strength group significantly improved maximal strength measures at weeks 14 and 26 (P < .05), cycling economy from weeks 0 to 14 (P < .05), and running economy from weeks 14 to 26 (P < .05) with no change in body mass (P > .05). The endurance-only group did not significantly improve any economy measures.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of progressive load ST to LD triathletes' training programs can significantly improve running and cycling economy without an increase in body mass.

Strength Training in Long-Distance Triathletes: Barriers and Characteristics

ABSTRACT

Luckin, KM, Badenhorst, CE, Cripps, AJ, Landers, GJ, Merrells, RJ, Bulsara, MK, and Hoyne, GF. Strength training in long-distance triathletes: Barriers and characteristics. J Strength Cond Res 35(2): 495-502, 2021-The purpose of this investigation was to identify perceived and physical barriers toward the completion of concurrent strength training and endurance training in long-distance triathletes. Three hundred ninety long-distance triathletes (224 women, 166 men; age [y]: 39 ± 10) completed a 68-question self-administered, semiquantitative survey that assessed endurance and strength training characteristics, experience in triathlon, and perceived barriers regarding the completion of strength training. Mean training hours per week was 14.92 ± 5.25, with 54.6% reporting participation in strength training. Heavy strength training was the most commonly reported (39.4%), with significantly more men completing this form of strength training (p < 0.001). Results from subjects who did not complete strength training indicated that perceived time constraints (53.1%) in addition to lack of knowledge on exercise progression and form (52.5%) are prominent perceived barriers to strength training completion. Identification of the barriers perceived by long-distance triathletes that prevent them from completing concurrent strength training and endurance training may be useful for coaches, athletes, and sports scientists who seek to incorporate strength training for injury prevention and performance improvement.

The Effect of 30-Second Sprints During Prolonged Exercise on Gross Efficiency, Electromyography, and Pedaling Technique in Elite Cyclists

BACKGROUND

Cycling competitions are often of long duration and include repeated high-intensity efforts.

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect of repeated maximal sprints during 4 hours of low-intensity cycling on gross efficiency (GE), electromyography patterns, and pedaling technique compared with work-matched low-intensity cycling in elite cyclists.

METHODS

Twelve elite, male cyclists performed 4 hours of cycling at 50% of maximal oxygen uptake either with 3 sets of 3 × 30-second maximal sprints (E&S) during the first 3 hours or a work-matched cycling without sprints (E) in a randomized order. Oxygen uptake, electromyography, and pedaling technique were recorded throughout the exercises.

RESULTS

GE was reduced from start to the end of exercise in both conditions (E&S: 19.0 [0.2] vs 18.1 [0.2], E: 19.1% [0.2%] vs 18.1% [0.2%], both P = .001), with no difference in change between conditions (condition × time interaction, P = .8). Integrated electromyography increased from start to end of exercise in m. vastus lateralis and m. vastus medialis (m. vastus medialis: 9.9 [2.4], m. vastus lateralis: 8.5 [4.0] mV, main effect of time: P < .001 and P = .03, respectively) and E&S increased less than E in m. vastus medialis (mean difference -3.3 [1.5] mV, main effect of condition: P = .03, interaction, P = .06). The mechanical effectiveness only decreased in E&S (E&S: -2.2 [0.7], effect size = 0.24 vs E: -1.3 [0.8] percentage points: P = .04 and P = .8, respectively). The mean power output during each set of 3 × 30-second sprints in E&S did not differ (P = .6).

CONCLUSIONS

GE decreases as a function of time during 4 hours of low-intensity cycling. However, the inclusion of maximal repeated sprinting does not affect the GE changes, and the ability to sprint is maintained throughout the entire session.

Comparison of Short-Sprint and Heavy Strength Training on Cycling Performance

Purpose

To compare the effects of short-sprint training (SST) and heavy-strength training (HST) following a 4-week strength-training period on sprint and endurance capacities in well-trained cyclists.

Methods

Twenty-eight competitive cyclists (age 29 ± 6 years) with maximal oxygen uptake () of 61.1 ± 5.9 mL⋅min^-1⋅kg^-1 participated. After a 4-weeks preparation strength-training period, the participants were randomized to add either HST or SST to their usual endurance training for the subsequent 6 weeks. Body composition, and power output at blood lactate concentration ([La^-]) of 4 mmol⋅L^-1, as well as a 100 min cycling test including 6 and 30-s sprints, 60 min cycling at [La^-] of 2 mmol⋅L^-1 and 5-min all-out cycling were performed before the 4-week preparation strength-training period, and before and after the 6-week intervention period. In addition, 1 repetition maximum (RM) in half-squat and 55-m maximal sprints on the cyclists' own bikes were measured before and after the 6-week intervention.

Results

SST was superior to HST in 6-s sprint performance, both in a fresh state (4.7 ± 2.6% vs. 1.1 ± 3.5%) and after prolong cycling (6.1 ± 1.8% vs. 1.8 ± 4.2%), in 30-s sprint (3.7 ± 2.8% vs. 1.3 ± 2.5%) and in 55-m seated sprint on own bike (4.3 ± 2.1% vs. 0.2 ± 1.8%) (all p < 0.002). HST induced a larger 1RM improvement in the half-squat test than SST (9.3 ± 3.6% vs. -3.9 ± 3.8%; p < 0.001). No group differences were revealed in the 5-min all-out test, , power output at 4 mmol⋅L^-1 [La^-], or in gross efficiency.

Conclusion

SST led to a greater increase in average and peak power output on all sprint tests compared to HST, whereas HST led to a greater increase in maximal strength. No group differences were found in relative changes in endurance capacities. Altogether, our results show a high degree of specificity in the adaptations of both SST and HST.

Comparison of Short-Sprint and Heavy Strength Training on Cycling Performance

PURPOSE

To compare the effects of short-sprint training (SST) and heavy-strength training (HST) following a 4-week strength-training period on sprint and endurance capacities in well-trained cyclists.

METHODS

Twenty-eight competitive cyclists (age 29 ± 6 years) with maximal oxygen uptake () of 61.1 ± 5.9 mL⋅min^-1⋅kg^-1 participated. After a 4-weeks preparation strength-training period, the participants were randomized to add either HST or SST to their usual endurance training for the subsequent 6 weeks. Body composition, and power output at blood lactate concentration ([La^-]) of 4 mmol⋅L^-1, as well as a 100 min cycling test including 6 and 30-s sprints, 60 min cycling at [La^-] of 2 mmol⋅L^-1 and 5-min all-out cycling were performed before the 4-week preparation strength-training period, and before and after the 6-week intervention period. In addition, 1 repetition maximum (RM) in half-squat and 55-m maximal sprints on the cyclists' own bikes were measured before and after the 6-week intervention.

RESULTS

SST was superior to HST in 6-s sprint performance, both in a fresh state (4.7 ± 2.6% vs. 1.1 ± 3.5%) and after prolong cycling (6.1 ± 1.8% vs. 1.8 ± 4.2%), in 30-s sprint (3.7 ± 2.8% vs. 1.3 ± 2.5%) and in 55-m seated sprint on own bike (4.3 ± 2.1% vs. 0.2 ± 1.8%) (all p < 0.002). HST induced a larger 1RM improvement in the half-squat test than SST (9.3 ± 3.6% vs. -3.9 ± 3.8%; p < 0.001). No group differences were revealed in the 5-min all-out test, , power output at 4 mmol⋅L^-1 [La^-], or in gross efficiency.

CONCLUSION

SST led to a greater increase in average and peak power output on all sprint tests compared to HST, whereas HST led to a greater increase in maximal strength. No group differences were found in relative changes in endurance capacities. Altogether, our results show a high degree of specificity in the adaptations of both SST and HST.

Training and Competition Readiness in Triathlon

Triathlon is characterized by the multidisciplinary nature of the sport where swimming, cycling, and running are completed sequentially in different events, such as the sprint, Olympic, long-distance, and Ironman formats. The large number of training sessions and overall volume undertaken by triathletes to improve fitness and performance can also increase the risk of injury, illness, or excessive fatigue. Short- and medium-term individualized training plans, periodization strategies, and work/rest balance are necessary to minimize interruptions to training due to injury, illness, or maladaptation. Even in the absence of health and wellbeing concerns, it is unclear whether cellular signals triggered by multiple training stimuli that drive training adaptations each day interfere with each other. Distribution of training intensity within and between different sessions is an important aspect of training. Both internal (perceived stress) and external loads (objective metrics) should be considered when monitoring training load. Incorporating strength training to complement the large body of endurance work in triathlon can help avoid overuse injuries. We explore emerging trends and strategies from the latest literature and evidence-based knowledge for improving training readiness and performance during competition in triathlon.

Heavy strength training improves running and cycling performance following prolonged submaximal work in well-trained female athletes

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of adding heavy strength training to female duathletes' normal endurance training on both cycling and running performance. Nineteen well‐trained female duathletes (VO_2max cycling: 54 ± 3 ml∙kg⁻¹∙min⁻¹, VO_2max running: 53 ± 3 ml∙kg⁻¹∙min⁻¹) were randomly assigned to either normal endurance training (E, n = 8) or normal endurance training combined with strength training (E+S, n = 11). The strength training consisted of four lower body exercises [3 × 4‐10 repetition maximum (RM)] twice a week for 11 weeks. Running and cycling performance were assessed using 5‐min all‐out tests, performed immediately after prolonged periods of submaximal work (3 h cycling or 1.5 h running). E+S increased 1RM in half squat (45 ± 22%) and lean mass in the legs (3.1 ± 4.0%) more than E. Performance during the 5‐min all‐out test increased in both cycling (7.0 ± 4.5%) and running (4.7 ± 6.0%) in E+S, whereas no changes occurred in E. The changes in running performance were different between groups. E+S reduced oxygen consumption and heart rate during the final 2 h of prolonged cycling, whereas no changes occurred in E. No changes occurred during the prolonged running in any group. Adding strength training to normal endurance training in well‐trained female duathletes improved both running and cycling performance when tested immediately after prolonged submaximal work.

Strength training improves double-poling performance after prolonged submaximal exercise in cross-country skiers

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of adding strength training with or without vibration to cross-country (XC) skiers' endurance training on double-poling (DP) performance, physiological, and kinematic adaptations. Twenty-one well-trained male XC-skiers combined endurance- and upper-body strength training three times per week, either with (n = 11) or without (n = 10) superimposed vibrations for 8 weeks, whereas eight skiers performed endurance training only (CON). Testing included 1RM in upper-body exercises, work economy, neural activation, oxygen saturation in muscle, and DP kinematics during a prolonged submaximal DP roller ski test which was directly followed by a time to exhaustion (TTE) test. TTE was also performed in rested state, and the difference between the two TTE tests (TTE_diff ) determined the ability to maintain DP performance after prolonged exercise. Vibration induced no additional effect on strength or endurance gains. Therefore, the two strength training groups were pooled (STR, n = 21). 1RM in STR increased more than in CON (P < .05), and there were no differences in changes between STR and CON in any measurements during prolonged submaximal DP. STR improved TTE following prolonged DP (20 ± 16%, P < .001) and revealed a moderate effect size compared to CON (ES = 0.80; P = .07). Furthermore, STR improved TTE_diff more than CON (P = .049). In conclusion, STR superiorly improved 1RM strength, DP performance following prolonged submaximal DP and TTE_diff , indicating a specific effect of improved strength on the ability to maintain performance after long-lasting exercise.

The effect of low- vs high-cadence interval training on the freely chosen cadence and performance in endurance-trained cyclists

The aim of this study was to determine the effects of high- and low-cadence interval training on the freely chosen cadence (FCC) and performance in endurance-trained cyclists. Sixteen male endurance-trained cyclists completed a series of submaximal rides at 60% maximal power (Wmax) at cadences of 50, 70, 90, and 110 r·min(-1), and their FCC to determine their preferred cadence, gross efficiency (GE), rating of perceived exertion, and crank torque profile. Performance was measured via a 15-min time trial, which was preloaded with a cycle at 60% Wmax. Following the testing, the participants were randomly assigned to a high-cadence (HC) (20% above FCC) or a low-cadence (LC) (20% below FCC) group for 18 interval-based training sessions over 6 weeks. The HC group increased their FCC from 92 to 101 r·min(-1) after the intervention (p = 0.01), whereas the LC group remained unchanged (93 r·min(-1)). GE increased from 22.7% to 23.6% in the HC group at 90 r·min(-1) (p = 0.05), from 20.0% to 20.9% at 110 r·min(-1) (p = 0.05), and from 22.8% to 23.2% at their FCC. Both groups significantly increased their total distance and average power output following training, with the LC group recording a superior performance measure. There were minimal changes to the crank torque profile in both groups following training. This study demonstrated that the FCC can be altered with HC interval training and that the determinants of the optimal cycling cadence are multifactorial and not completely understood. Furthermore, LC interval training may significantly improve time-trial results of short duration as a result of an increase in strength development or possible neuromuscular adaptations.

Strength training improves performance and pedaling characteristics in elite cyclists

The purpose was to investigate the effect of 25 weeks heavy strength training in young elite cyclists. Nine cyclists performed endurance training and heavy strength training (ES) while seven cyclists performed endurance training only (E). ES, but not E, resulted in increases in isometric half squat performance, lean lower body mass, peak power output during Wingate test, peak aerobic power output (W(max)), power output at 4 mmol L(-1)[la(-)], mean power output during 40-min all-out trial, and earlier occurrence of peak torque during the pedal stroke (P < 0.05). ES achieved superior improvements in W(max) and mean power output during 40-min all-out trial compared with E (P < 0.05). The improvement in 40-min all-out performance was associated with the change toward achieving peak torque earlier in the pedal stroke (r = 0.66, P < 0.01). Neither of the groups displayed alterations in VO2max or cycling economy. In conclusion, heavy strength training leads to improved cycling performance in elite cyclists as evidenced by a superior effect size of ES training vs E training on relative improvements in power output at 4 mmol L(-1)[la(-)], peak power output during 30-s Wingate test, W(max), and mean power output during 40-min all-out trial.

Muscle fatigue based evaluation of bicycle design

Bicycling posture leads to considerable discomfort and a variety of chronic injuries. This necessitates a proper bicycle design to avoid injuries and thereby enhance rider comfort. The objective of this study was to investigate the muscle activity during cycling on three different bicycle designs, i.e., rigid frame (RF), suspension (SU) and sports (SP) using surface electromyography (sEMG). Twelve male volunteers participated in this study. sEMG signals were acquired bilaterally from extensor carpi radialis (ECR), trapezius medial (TM), latissimus dorsi medial (LDM) and erector spinae (ES), during 30 min of cycling on each bicycle and after cycling. Time domain (RMS) and frequency domain (MPF) parameters were extracted from acquired sEMG signals. From the sEMG study, it was found that the fatigue in right LDM and ES were significantly (p < 0.05) higher in SP bicycle. This was corroborated by a psychophysical assessment based on RBG pain scale. The study also showed that there was a significantly lesser fatigue with the SU bicycle than the RF and SP bicycles.

Optimizing strength training for running and cycling endurance performance: A review

Here we report on the effect of combining endurance training with heavy or explosive strength training on endurance performance in endurance-trained runners and cyclists. Running economy is improved by performing combined endurance training with either heavy or explosive strength training. However, heavy strength training is recommended for improving cycling economy. Equivocal findings exist regarding the effects on power output or velocity at the lactate threshold. Concurrent endurance and heavy strength training can increase running speed and power output at VO2max (Vmax and Wmax, respectively) or time to exhaustion at Vmax and Wmax. Combining endurance training with either explosive or heavy strength training can improve running performance, while there is most compelling evidence of an additive effect on cycling performance when heavy strength training is used. It is suggested that the improved endurance performance may relate to delayed activation of less efficient type II fibers, improved neuromuscular efficiency, conversion of fast-twitch type IIX fibers into more fatigue-resistant type IIA fibers, or improved musculo-tendinous stiffness.

Cyclists’ Improvement of Pedaling Efficacy and Performance After Heavy Strength Training

The authors tested whether heavy strength training, including hip-flexion exercise, would reduce the extent of the phase in the crank revolution where negative or retarding crank torque occurs. Negative torque normally occurs in the upstroke phase when the leg is lifted by flexing the hip. Eighteen well-trained cyclists either performed 12 wk of heavy strength training in addition to their usual endurance training (E+S; n = 10) or merely continued their usual endurance training during the intervention period (E; n = 8). The strength training consisted of 4 lower body exercises (3 × 4–10 repetition maximum) performed twice a week. E+S enhanced cycling performance by 7%, which was more than in E (P = .02). Performance was determined as average power output in a 5-min all-out trial performed subsequent to 185 min of submaximal cycling. The performance enhancement, which has been reported previously, was here shown to be accompanied by improved pedaling efficacy during the all-out cycling. Thus, E+S shortened the phase where negative crank torque occurs by ~16°, corresponding to ~14%, which was more than in E (P = .002). In conclusion, adding heavy strength training to usual endurance training in well-trained cyclists improves pedaling efficacy during 5-min all-out cycling performed after 185 min of cycling.

The Relationship Between Freely Chosen Cadence and Optimal Cadence in Cycling

Purpose:

The main aim of this study was to compare the freely chosen cadence (FCC) and the cadence at which the blood lactate concentration at constant power output is minimized (optimal cadence [Copt]). The second aim was to examine the effect of a concomitant change of road incline and body position on FCC, the maximal external power output (Pmax), and the corresponding Copt.

Methods:

FCC, Copt, and Pmax were analyzed under 2 conditions: cycling on level ground in a dropped position (LGDP) and cycling uphill in an upright position (UHUP). Seven experienced cyclists participated in this study. They cycled on a treadmill to test the 2 main hypotheses: Experienced cyclists would choose an adequate cadence close to Copt independent of the cycling condition, and FCC and Copt would be lower and Pmax higher for UHUP than with LGDP.

Results:

Most but not all experienced cyclists chose an adequate cadence close to Copt. Independent of the cycling condition, FCC and Copt were not statistically different. FCC (82.1 ± 11.1 and 89.3 ± 10.6 rpm, respectively) and Copt (81.5 ± 9.8 and 87.7 ± 10.9 rpm, respectively) were significantly lower and Pmax was significantly higher (2.0 ± 2.1%) for UHUP than for LGDP.

Conclusion:

Most experienced cyclists choose a cadence near Copt to minimize peripheral fatigue at a given power output independent of the cycling condition. Furthermore, it is advantageous to use a lower cadence and a more upright body position during uphill cycling.

Power-cadence relationship in endurance cycling

In maximal sprint cycling, the power-cadence relationship to assess the maximal power output (P (max)) and the corresponding optimal cadence (C (opt)) has been widely investigated in experimental studies. These studies have generally reported a quadratic power-cadence relationship passing through the origin. The aim of the present study was to evaluate an equivalent method to assess P (max) and C (opt) for endurance cycling. The two main hypotheses were: (1) in the range of cadences normally used by cyclists, the power-cadence relationship can be well fitted with a quadratic regression constrained to pass through the origin; (2) P (max) and C (opt) can be well estimated using this quadratic fit. We tested our hypothesis using a theoretical and an experimental approach. The power-cadence relationship simulated with the theoretical model was well fitted with a quadratic regression and the bias of the estimated P (max) and C (opt) was negligible (1.0 W and 0.6 rpm). In the experimental part, eight cyclists performed an incremental cycling test at 70, 80, 90, 100, and 110 rpm to yield power-cadence relationships at fixed blood lactate concentrations of 3, 3.5, and 4 mmol L(-1). The determined power outputs were well fitted with quadratic regressions (R (2) = 0.94-0.96, residual standard deviation = 1.7%). The 95% confidence interval for assessing individual P (max) and C (opt) was ±4.4 W and ±2.9 rpm. These theoretical and experimental results suggest that P (max), C (opt), and the power-cadence relationship around C (opt) could be well estimated with the proposed method.

In-season strength maintenance training increases well-trained cyclists' performance

We investigated the effects of strength maintenance training on thigh muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), leg strength, determinants of cycling performance, and cycling performance. Well-trained cyclists completed either (1) usual endurance training supplemented with heavy strength training twice a week during a 12-week preparatory period followed by strength maintenance training once a week during the first 13 weeks of a competition period (E + S; n = 6 [♂ = 6]), or (2) usual endurance training during the whole intervention period (E; n = 6 [♂ = 5, ♀ = 1]). Following the preparatory period, E + S increased thigh muscle CSA and 1RM (p < 0.05), while no changes were observed in E. Both groups increased maximal oxygen consumption and mean power output in the 40-min all-out trial (p < 0.05). At 13 weeks into the competition period, E + S had preserved the increase in CSA and strength from the preparatory period. From the beginning of the preparatory period to 13 weeks into the competition period, E + S increased peak power output in the Wingate test, power output at 2 mmol l(-1) [la(-)], maximal aerobic power output (W (max)), and mean power output in the 40-min all-out trial (p < 0.05). The relative improvements in the last two measurements were larger than in E (p < 0.05). For E, W (max) and power output at 2 mmol l(-1) [la(-)] remained unchanged. In conclusion, in well-trained cyclists, strength maintenance training in a competition period preserved increases in thigh muscle CSA and leg strength attained in a preceding preparatory period and further improved cycling performance determinants and performance.