Resistance Training for Cyclists: Scientific Evidence and Practical Recommendations
Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports · 2026
Heavy, low-volume RT (1-2x/week, 60-85% 1RM, capped velocity loss) seems to help cyclists perform without adding bulk, but this is synthesis, not new trial data.
Part of: Training load and injury risk: what the evidence says · Endurance performance and physiology: training the aerobic engine · Strength and hypertrophy: programming for adaptation
The paper
Narrative review synthesizing evidence on resistance training (RT) for competitive/recreational cyclists, covering performance, body composition and bone health outcomes.
What they found
The authors conclude that 1-2 weekly RT sessions at 60-85% 1RM, using 2-4 sets of 3-5 compound lower-body exercises with intra-set velocity loss capped at 10-20%, improves key cycling performance indicators without causing unwanted hypertrophy, and may help counteract low bone mineral density in competitive cyclists; no pooled effect sizes, confidence intervals or p-values are reported since this is a narrative synthesis rather than a meta-analysis.
Study design
Narrative review (not a systematic review or meta-analysis), drawing on an unspecified body of primary studies in competitive and recreational cyclists; no sample size applies since it is not a primary study.
Methodology
There is no stated systematic search strategy, no PRISMA flow, and no formal risk-of-bias or GRADE quality grading described in the abstract, so the synthesis is vulnerable to selection and citation bias, including possible over-reliance on the authors' own prior trials given that Pallarés and Valenzuela have published extensively on velocity-based resistance training. A clinician cannot verify the strength of each underlying claim (performance benefit, hypertrophy-null-effect, bone density benefit) without pulling the individual primary RCTs cited inside the full text.
The appraisal
The programming recommendations (frequency, load, velocity-loss threshold) are specific and clinically actionable, but because this is a narrative review with no pooled effect size, the actual magnitude of performance benefit and how consistent it is across studies cannot be judged from this paper alone. The bone health claim is explicitly flagged by the authors as preliminary, so it is association/expert opinion rather than a tested causal effect in this paper.
The gap
There is no quantitative synthesis or quality grading, so it is unclear how strong or consistent the evidence is behind each specific recommendation versus how much reflects the authors' own prior work; a systematic review with pooled effect sizes and GRADE ratings would be needed before treating these thresholds as firm dosing rules.
Landmark context
This builds on the established concurrent-training literature in endurance athletes (e.g. work on compatibility of strength and endurance training by Rønnestad and colleagues, and cyclist-specific RCTs using velocity-based training from Pallarés' group) rather than contradicting it; it functions as a practitioner-facing synthesis of that line of research.
What to do Monday
S&C coaches and physios working with cyclists can reasonably use this as a programming template, 1-2x/week heavy compound lower-body lifts (60-85% 1RM, 2-4 sets, velocity-loss capped at 10-20%) to counter the common 'lifting will add bulk and slow me down' objection, but should treat the specific percentages as a starting framework drawn from a non-systematic synthesis rather than a validated universal prescription. For cyclists flagged with low bone mineral density or a bone stress injury, this RT framework is a reasonable adjunct to standard bone-health management (dietary, hormonal, load-bearing cross-training), not a substitute for it, since the authors themselves describe that evidence as preliminary.
In practice
This applies to competitive and serious recreational cyclists being programmed for performance, and to cyclists in clinic who resist loaded lifting for fear of bulk or interference with riding. On the S&C floor: build 1-2x/week sessions of squat, deadlift, leg press or hip thrust variants at 60-85% 1RM for 2-4 sets, capping sets at 10-20% velocity loss (or stopping 1-2 reps short of failure if you don't have bar-speed tracking); baseline Squat and Deadlift (or Single Leg Press for unilateral work) to anchor the %1RM targets and re-test every 6-8 weeks as strength changes. In the physio clinic, this is solid evidence to prescribe real compound loading instead of isolated banded work when a cyclist pushes back on strength training for performance reasons. Caveat: for cyclists with low bone mineral density or a bone stress injury, treat this framework as an adjunct to standard bone-health management, not a replacement, since the authors themselves call that evidence preliminary.
The five papers that matter — every week, free.
We read the whole sports-medicine, rehab & performance literature and appraise the papers worth your time.
Get the free weekly issue