https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3073-4182
Figures
Abstract
In our study, we aimed to investigate professional road cyclists’ practices in strength training, as well as their challenges with and rationales for strength training. Employing a mixed-methods approach, we collected data using a quantitative questionnaire and analysed semi-structured interviews using content analysis. After identifying professional road cyclists on FirstCycling.com’s cycling statistics database, we contacted 624 cyclists by direct messaging on social media platforms, primarily Instagram. Of them, 147 professional road cyclists—88 male and 59 female—responded to the questionnaire, which we complemented with 10 semi-structured interviews to gain deeper insights into their strength training. Results revealed a common practice of engaging in two strength training sessions per week during the off- and pre-season, which dropped to one maintenance session during the race season. More female than male cyclists reported engaging in strength training during both the pre-season (96.6% vs. 85.3%) and race season (66.1% vs. 36.4%). The most significant challenges to maintaining consistent strength training were travelling, fatigue, and racing, while the primary rationales for strength training were to enhance performance, prevent injuries, and improve bone health. Moreover, the cyclists’ choices in strength training seemed to be largely influenced by guidance from coaches. Altogether, our findings highlight the complexities inherent in strength training among professional cyclists and emphasise the need for expert guidance to maintain consistent practices in strength training, especially during the race season.
Citation: Vikestad V, Lyngstad IK, Dalen T (2025) Strength training among professional UCI road cyclists: Practices, challenges, and rationales. PLoS One 20(7): e0328195. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0328195
Editor: Domingo Jesús Ramos-Campo, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Faculty of Sports Science (INEF), SPAIN
Received: December 10, 2024; Accepted: June 26, 2025; Published: July 10, 2025
Copyright: © 2025 Vikestad et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Professional road cycling, a demanding endurance sport with varied races and multi-week stage races, drives athletes and coaches to seek competitive advantages via different approaches to training. Several studies have indeed shown that strength training can enhance cycling and endurance performance [1–7]. For improved exercise economy and performance, two weekly pre-season sessions focused on maximal strength are often recommended [2,3,5,8,9]. Improvements in performance in particular are often attributed to improved exercise economy, thought to be caused by adaptations in the strength-trained muscles, including the postponed activation of less efficient type II fibres, improved neuromuscular efficiency, the conversion of fast-twitch type IIX fibres into more fatigue-resistant type IIA fibres, and improved musculotendinous stiffness [1,2,5]. Those adaptations are likely to disappear if cyclists cease to perform strength training for more than 8 weeks but can be maintained with as little as one session per week [10,11]. Moreover, the improvements in endurance performance due to strength training appear to be equally beneficial for male and female cyclists [6].
A popular form of training among cyclists is core and stability training. Despite having no universal definition, core stability is often limited to the spinal extensors, flexors, lateral flexors, and rotators. However, in this article, core and stability training refers to exercises targeting muscles between the shoulders and pelvis [12]. Although core and stability training is widely practised, evidence of its impact on performance remains limited. In a study with trained cyclists, Sitko et al. [13] found that 12 weeks of core exercises encompassing glute bridges, abdominal planks, and prone back extensions did not improve mean power output across various maximal cycling efforts lasting from 5 seconds to 20 minutes. By contrast, their study’s group of cyclists who underwent conventional strength exercises (i.e., half squats, single-leg leg presses, one-legged hip flexion, and ankle plantar flexion) showed improvements in time trials [13]. Albeit hypothesised that core training might also boost injury prevention [14], some research suggests that classical strength exercises are sufficient for adaptations in core and stability [12]. After all, lower back pain and knee pain are the most common injuries due to overuse in cycling [15]. Abt et al. [16] have suggested that altered cycling mechanics due to induced core fatigue, as observed among competitive cyclists in their study, could elevate the risk of injury due to subjecting the knee joint to increased stress. Even so, strength training can also provide an important stimulus for maintaining optimal bone health, and that benefit might be particularly important for professional cyclists, who have shown lower bone mineral density and bone mineral content than amateur cyclists [17,18]. Added to that, cyclists often prioritise a low body weight, which could negatively affect their bone health if they do not manage to meet their personal energy demands [19,20]. Bone health might additionally be important for preventing injuries, considering that fractures are the most common acute injury from crashes that have led to withdrawal from the Tour de France [21].
Although strength training can enhance endurance performance, concurrent endurance and strength training can inhibit the development of both strength and hypertrophy [22–25]. Strength training can also temporarily impair endurance performance if recovery between a strength training session and a subsequent endurance session is inadequate [9,26–28]. Impairment in endurance performance following strength training is thought to be caused by neuromuscular fatigue, muscle soreness, and muscle glycogen depletion, among other factors [29], with a magnitude that seems to vary based on the athlete’s background in strength training [30]. To minimise such interference, researchers recommend scheduling strength training and endurance sessions at least 6 hours apart [28,31,32].
For endurance athletes, integrating strength training into training routines can present numerous challenges. A study investigating challenges related to strength training among amateur long-distance triathletes, for instance, revealed time constraints and lack of knowledge about strength training as major barriers [33]. However, professional road cycling stands out among endurance sports for its frequent multi-day stage races, including three Grand Tours lasting 3 weeks each. Moreover, during the 2023 season, the top 400 most frequently competing professional male cyclists averaged 70.8 ± 6.1 race days, while the top 50 female cyclists averaged 53.5 ± 3.8 [34]. Such an extensive racing schedule may introduce challenges with maintaining a consistent strength training routine. In fact, when Gallo et al. [35] analysed the training of three of the top five finishers in the Giro d’Italia in the 22 weeks preceding the event, they found that none of the cyclists were performing strength training despite their coaches’ indications to add it to their routines. In a similar study conducted a year later, two of the top five finishers of the Tour de France reported engaging in strength training during November and December but not during the last 6 months preceding the event in July [36]. Nevertheless, no information is provided on why the cyclists discontinued their strength training when approaching the race season.
Although several other studies have investigated the training habits of elite and professional road cyclists, they have often been case studies or multiple-case studies [35–37]. Meanwhile, other studies have examined cyclists’ endurance training [38–42] and racing demands [43] but not their habits in strength training. Despite the insights afforded by such research, no studies have investigated the strength training practices of elite or professional road cyclists, the challenges that they encounter, or the rationales behind their choices when it comes to strength training. Given the distinct racing and training demands of road cycling and the complexities surrounding strength training in the sport, in our study we aimed to answer three questions, as follows, while investigating potential differences between male and female cyclists:
- How do professional road cyclists integrate strength training into their training routines?
- What challenges related to strength training do they experience?
- What is the rationale behind their decision-making related to strength training?
Method
Participants
Our study’s sample included only road cyclists from professional teams categorised by the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) as Women’s World Teams (WTW), Women’s Continental Teams (CTW), World Teams (WTT), Pro Teams (PRT), or Continental Teams (CTM). Of 624 professional road cyclists initially contacted, 147 cyclists—88 male and 59 female—responded to our questionnaire, for a response rate of 23.6%. Our semi-structured interviewees, meanwhile, consisted of 10 cyclists—7 male and 3 female—across all five categories of professional teams.
We identified prospective participants on FirstCycling.com, a cycling statistics database that often provides links to the riders’ social media profiles (e.g., on Instagram), and contacted them via direct messaging. Sampling did not exclude any teams or cyclists from the WTW, WTT, or PRT categories, for those teams typically have extensive racing calendars centred around European and international events. However, for the CTW and CTM teams, sampling targeted European-based teams and cyclists as well as non-European teams competing on a primarily European racing calendar. The approach ensured a more homogeneous sample in terms of race exposure and competition structure, for many non-European teams often have very small or regionally focused racing calendars. Ultimately, recruitment was biased towards cyclists with links to their social media profiles on FirstCycling.com, cyclists active on social media who saw our call for participants, and cyclists willing to complete the questionnaire. For the interviews, we contacted cyclists who responded to our initial request to complete the questionnaire, meaning that recruitment for the interview entailed the same selection biases as recruitment for the questionnaire. Initially, the approach yielded only male interviewees; thus, to ensure representation across all team levels and sexes, we selectively contacted only female cyclists after a sufficient number of male participants were recruited.
Informed consent and ethics
Participants received a detailed explanation of our research, its procedures, and their rights via an informed consent form. Participation was voluntary, and withdrawal was allowed at any time. Participants’ written informed consent was obtained electronically via digital signature prior to the interviews, and their confidentiality was maintained by removing personal identifiers from transcripts and using numbers and team levels for identification. All data were securely stored with password protection until the project’s completion and then deleted. The study was reviewed and approved by the Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research (Ref. No. 322042) (Table 1).
Research design
Our study followed a mixed-methods approach combining a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews to investigate the practices, challenges, and rationales of professional road cyclists when it comes to strength training. The questionnaire provided quantitative data for statistical analysis, while interviews offered qualitative insights, for an altogether comprehensive understanding of the topic.
Questionnaire
We collected data for our study primarily using a questionnaire designed to efficiently gather data on the practices, challenges, and rationales of cyclists in relation to strength training (S1 Fig). All data, from both the questionnaire and interviews, were collected between 11 November 2023 and 20 December 2023, a period corresponding to professional cyclists’ off-season or pre-season. Self-reported training data from elite endurance athletes have been found to be accurate [44]. The questionnaire, tested and refined in a pilot study with amateur cyclists before being distributed to professional cyclists, was administered in English because no translation was deemed necessary for the targeted population.
The questionnaire began by gathering the professional road cyclists’ demographic information (i.e., age, sex, and team level), number of race days, and the duration of effort at which they considered themselves to be strongest. Another question inquired into their frequency of strength training, quantified as sessions per week during the off-season, pre-season, and race season with nine response options (i.e., 0, < 1, 1,... 7 sessions per week). When the average number of sessions per week was used in analysis, responses of <1 session per week were counted as 0.5 sessions per week. Five other questions, all answered on a 9-point Likert scale, addressed contentment with coaching received for (1) endurance training and (2) strength training, (3) enjoyment of endurance training, (4) enjoyment of strength training, and (5) confidence in the idea that strength training could improve their cycling performance. Cyclists were also asked whether they had experienced improvements in cycling performance due to strength training, with the response options of ‘Yes’, ‘No’, and ‘Not sure’. Last, six additional single-choice and multiple-choice questions with preset alternatives addressed (1) methods of strength training, (2) body parts regularly trained, (3) reasons for engaging in strength training, (4) challenges in strength training, and beliefs regarding strength training’s (5) positive effects and (6) negative effects. Throughout the questionnaire, we emphasised neutral questions in order to ensure unbiased responses, thereby enhancing the survey’s reliability and precision.
Quantitative analysis
We analysed data from the questionnaire using IBM SPSS Statistics (version 28). Between-group differences in categorical variables (e.g., challenges with strength training) were analysed using the chi-square (χ2) test of independence, with Cramer’s V for effect size (interpreted as small: V ≥ .1, moderate: V ≥ .3, or large: V ≥ .5). To examine within-group differences in categorical data, we employed McNemar’s pairwise comparison with Bonferroni correction to adjust for multiple comparisons.
For the questions regarding training frequency and scale-based questions with ordinal data, Mann–Whitney U tests were used to assess between-group differences. To assess the magnitude of between-group differences, we calculated effect sizes (r) for each Mann–Whitney U test using the formula:
in which Z is the test statistic and N being the total sample size. Results were interpreted to be small (r ≥ .1), moderate (r ≥ .3), or large (r ≥ .5).
Last, for non-normal distributed scale-based questions, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to assess within-group differences in the frequency of strength training across different periods of the season.
Interviews
Interviews were conducted digitally via Microsoft Teams and recorded for transcription. Two semi-structured interview guides were used: one for cyclists who included strength training in their routine, and one for those who did not. Both guides followed a consistent structure, asking about training routines, challenges, and rationale regarding strength training, with open-ended questions to encourage detailed responses. The interview guide was based on the questionnaire to delve deeper into the research questions and avoid bias, which is crucial in semi-structured interviews [45]. All interviews were conducted by the first author, a former elite road cyclist, who aimed to provide in-depth insights while being mindful of potential biases. The duration of the interviews varied from 15 to 60 minutes depending on the depth of the participant’s responses. Efforts to mitigate those biases included avoiding leading questions, actively listening, and critically reflecting on personal biases throughout the interview process.
Qualitative analysis
A content analysis [45,46] was performed on the interviews, summarised in Table 2, which outlines research questions, derived codes, and their essence. For example, ‘Exercises and execution’ details how strength training routines are performed. Such data provides insights into participants’ practices, challenges, and rationale.
After transcribing the interviews, we conducted a deductive content analysis based on our three research topics of practices, challenges, and rationale in relation to strength training. Codes were developed from the results of the questionnaire and themes identified in the interviews, and transcripts were read multiple times to ensure accurate coding. Individual tables were created for each research topic to organise coded data for analysis and reporting. Coded data were synthesised to identify key insights, and summaries with selected citations to support findings were written. The anonymisation of cyclists, with their names and team identifiers systematically removed, ensured the confidentiality of all participants’ data.
Results
Characteristics of cyclists
The Chi-square test revealed no significant differences between male and female cyclists, and the McNemar test showed no within-group differences in the duration of effort at which cyclists considered themselves strongest after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. These findings indicate a balanced representation of rider characteristics in both groups.
Frequency of strength training
As shown in Table 3, more cyclists engaged in strength training (i.e., ≥ 1 session/week) during the off-season (76.2%) and pre-season (89.8%) than during the race season (48.3%). The values for the pre-season were also higher than for the off-season. By sex, female cyclists engaged in strength training (≥1 session/week) more than male cyclists during the pre-season (96.6% vs. 85.3%) and race season (66.1% vs. 36.4%), as well as engaged in it more often than male cyclists during both seasons (pre-season: 2.1 vs. 1.9 session/week, p < .01; race season: 1.2 vs. 0.9 sessions/week, p < .01). Although statistically significant, the difference of 0.2 and 0.3 sessions/week between sexes in the pre-season and race season represents a small effect size (pre-season: r = .260, and race season: r = .294), suggesting a modest but consistent trend in greater engagement among female cyclists.
Methods of strength training
As Table 4 details, the most frequently reported methods of strength training were core training and maximal strength training, followed by explosive strength training and hypertrophy training. For both sexes, the lower body and core were the body parts most trained. However, significantly more female than male cyclists reported engaging in upper body strength training (27.1% vs. 8.0%, p < 0.01), though the effect size was small (V = .259). Similarly, female cyclists more frequently performed hypertrophy training (55.9% vs. 31.8%, p < 0.01, V = .240) and core and stability training (86.4% vs. 71.6%, p < 0.05, V = .174), but again, effect sizes were small, suggesting these differences, while statistically significant, were modest in magnitude.
During interviews, cyclists provided insights into their strength training practices, which typically consisted of two weekly sessions during the off-season and pre-season, each featuring three to five primary exercises targeting the lower body muscles used in cycling. Common exercises included squats, single-leg squat variations, leg press, and deadlifts, and core training was often supplementary. In an adaptation phase at the beginning of the off- or pre-season, strength training featured more repetitions and less intensity, subsequently followed by a phase featuring increased intensity and fewer repetitions. Cyclists often focused on an explosive concentric part of the lift and adapted strength exercises to better match the demands of cycling. As one participant stated:
“Yes, it’s mostly two strength sessions per week, typically on the same day as a high-intensity workout. We start with a conditioning phase with 10–12 repetitions, then gradually decrease after 4–5 weeks, down to eight repetitions, and eventually down to six repetitions. I don’t usually go below five repetitions. We stick to the same exercises each time: squats, straight-legged deadlifts for hamstrings and back, weighted calf raises, leg press, and Bulgarian split squats. So those are the five main exercises, along with some simple core exercises. I do three sets per exercise.” (CTM3)
Another interviewee described their situation as well:
“They [squats] are quite a cycling-specific movement, I would say. At least in my case, I’ve performed them with a relatively narrow stance, and the range of motion doesn’t go beyond 90 degrees.” (PRT4)
Adjustments to strength training practices, usually focused on lessening the load of strength training for the upcoming season, involved reducing the frequency of training, number of exercises, number of sets, number of repetitions, and/or weights used to maintain strength without compromising race performance. The term ‘maintenance’ was frequently used to describe the focus of strength training during the race season. Training often became less frequent from the pre-season to the race season, with adjustments made to accommodate the race season’s demands.
Challenges with strength training
As Table 5 shows, travelling, fatigue, and racing were the challenges with strength training most reported by the cyclists. Female cyclists most frequently identified travelling as a barrier to strength training, and although the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.01), the effect size was small (V = .235), suggesting only a modest difference between sexes. Similarly, male cyclists more often mentioned a lack of motivation (p < 0.01, V = .242), again with a small effect size. Fatigue was consistently highlighted in interviews as well, especially during the race season due to the demanding schedule and frequent travel. Finding a balance between racing, training, and strength training was difficult, with fatigue often causing strength training to be deprioritised. Travelling also posed logistical challenges by impacting access to suitable facilities. Those findings underscore the complexities of integrating strength training into professional road cycling.
“The main challenge is travelling. Suddenly, you can be away and staying in different hotels for 40–50 consecutive days, which makes it difficult to find a gym where you can execute a proper strength programme. Often, the race schedule is unpredictable, with last-minute changes, which makes it impossible to stick to a consistent training plan. If you had planned to do strength training every seventh day, for example, you might not be able to do it because you have to travel to a stage race. It’s also hard to plan a visit to a gym to ensure proper strength training. It often turns into an adjusted session or trying to start from scratch each time you resume strength training.” (PRT6)
Rationale for strength training
Cyclists of both sexes cited improved cycling performance, injury prevention, and overall health—particularly bone health—as key reasons for engaging in strength training (Table 6). While some statistically significant sex differences were observed, the associated effect sizes were small. For instance, a greater proportion of female cyclists reported engaging in strength training for injury rehabilitation compared to males (30.5% vs. 15.9%, p < 0.05, V = .173). Likewise, improving bone health was cited more frequently by female cyclists (57.6% vs. 40.9%, p < 0.05, V = .164). These findings may reflect a slightly greater emphasis on health-related outcomes among female cyclists, but the differences between groups was small. In terms of perceived benefits, female cyclists were also more likely to report improved cycling performance as a result of strength training (93.2% vs. 81.8%, p < 0.05, V = .163), although again, the effect size was small. These subtle differences suggest that while core motivations are largely shared across sexes, female cyclists in this sample may perceive slightly greater rehabilitative and performance-related benefits from strength training.
“It’s for cycling performance and bone health, really. For climbers like me, it’s undeniable that there’s an impact on bone health, so I try to strengthen as much as possible. And I’ve actually seen results. Bone density went down when I didn’t prioritise strength, and I put a lot of strain on my body, which led to a significant loss of bone mass. However, in the past two years, it’s trended upwards again, and I’ve regained strength.” (WTW9)
Most cyclists received coaching guidance, with 90.1% of males and 98.3% of females reported having a coach, while 33.8% of males and 41.4% of females reported having a separate strength coach as well. Statistical analysis revealed no between-sex differences in contentment with coaching for strength (r = .016, p = .844) or endurance training (r = .086, p = .296). However, cyclists who engaged in strength training for ≥1 session per week during the race season were more content with their strength coaching (r = .185, p = .025), and cyclists with a separate strength coach reported greater contentment with their guidance on strength training (r = .268, p = .001). Although female cyclists reported more enjoyment with strength training than males did (r = .249, p = .002), no significant sex differences were found in the enjoyment of endurance training (r = .064, p = .438).
The cyclists with a separate strength coach reported being more content with the guidance that they received on their strength training than ones who did not (r = .270, p = .001), whereas no differences in contentment of with guidance on endurance emerged (r = .016, p = .837). They also did not report significantly more enjoyment with either strength training (r = .155, p = .061) or endurance training (r = .057, p = .488). Female cyclists reported significantly greater enjoyment with strength training than male cyclists did (r = .245, p = .002), whereas no difference occurred between males and females in enjoyment with endurance training (r = .064, p = .438).
Female cyclists (vs. male cyclists; r = .169, p = .04), cyclists who performed strength training during the race season (vs. ones who did not; r = .330, p = .001), and cyclists who had a separate strength coach (vs. ones who did not; r = .260, p = .002) were more confident that strength training would improve their cycling performance. Among the cyclists who engaged in strength training, 65.4% of males and 79.6% of females reported noticing improvements in their cycling performance due to strength training.
The interviews revealed varied perceptions of coaching’s impact on strength training. Some cyclists praised their coaches for introducing strength training and offering personalised strength training programmes, whereas others emphasised the need for coaches with expertise in cycling as well as in strength and conditioning. Collaboration with national sport institutes also provided specialised guidance. Dedicated strength and conditioning coaches on teams were viewed positively for offering comprehensive support and structured programming. Overall, coaching seemed to play a crucial role in shaping the cyclists’ strength training routines, with some expressing satisfaction with their cycling coach’s guidance while others preferred specialised strength coaches:
“I think a problem in the past year, as well with my cycling coach, is that he kind of let me follow my own advice. So I was pretty easy on myself. But I changed teams this year, which means that I now have both a cycling-specific coach and a strength specific coach with the team, and he plans everything.” (WTW10)
Discussion
Our findings showcase the major characteristics of strength training among professional road cyclists. During the off-season and pre-season, a strength training regime of two sessions per week was common among the cyclists in our study. The sessions usually centred on lower body exercises, especially the muscles used in the cycling movements, performed with conventional strength training exercises. Some supplementary core and stability exercises were also performed at the beginning or end of the sessions. Although a large proportion of cyclists stopped strength training during the race season, the cyclists who did not stop usually lowered their frequency of strength training to one session per week while transitioning from the pre-season to the race season. A greater proportion of female than male cyclists performed strength training during the pre- and race season as well as engaged in strength training more frequently during those periods.
The frequency of two strength training sessions per week during the pre-season that we found in our study aligns with recommendations in the literature. For example, Rønnestad and Mujika [5] have argued that two weekly sessions are sufficient for building maximal strength during the pre-season. Among the cyclists in our study, maximal strength training focused on the lower extremities, supplemented with some core training, was the most common method of strength training. Decreasing ranges of repetitions and increasing intensity throughout the period of strength training leading up to the race season seemed to be a common practice among the cyclists. The maximal strength training approach emphasising explosive concentric movement aligns with general recommendations in the literature [3,5,8,9]. Despite its widespread popularity, however, there is a lack of compelling literature supporting the notion that core training positively impacts endurance performance [14]. Such an emphasis on core training might stem from tradition or subjective experiences.
A considerable number of participants in this study—particularly female cyclists—reported engaging in hypertrophy-type strength training. However, the cyclists were quite divided on whether gaining muscle mass was positive or negative, with 40.1% viewing it as a beneficial effect of strength training, while 44.9% considered it a negative one. Although increased muscle mass is often seen as a disadvantage in road cycling due to added weight, there are scenarios in which hypertrophy may be desirable. Sprinters or cyclists with roles requiring high absolute power, rather than power-to-weight ratio, may pursue hypertrophy to enhance force production and sprinting ability. Additionally, some cyclists may include strength training with the aim of preserving muscle mass during periods of high-volume endurance training. It is worth noting, however, that due to the high training volume and energy expenditure typical of professional cycling, substantial muscle hypertrophy is rarely achieved in this population [5].
During the race season, the frequency of strength training among cyclists in our study typically dropped from two sessions per week in the pre-season to one. The reduction is likely adequate to maintain strength adaptations [11]. The sessions were often lower in volume and sometimes also in intensity in order to minimise fatigue and prevent the impairment of subsequent training or racing performance. A significant proportion of cyclists, particularly males, stopped performing strength training during the race season. Only 36.4% of male cyclists engaged in weekly strength training during the race season compared with 66.1% of females. Although strength training during the off-season and pre-season can improve muscle mass and bone health [18], if not maintained then its benefits on cycling performance seem to diminish within 8 weeks [10]. Male cyclists, who compete more frequently than females, have shorter recovery and training times between races, which might contribute to the difference. However, female cyclists identified travelling to races and training camps as a greater challenge, despite competing less often than males. That finding suggests that whereas female cyclists may perceive a host of logistical challenges related to travel, those barriers may not necessarily prevent them from continuing strength training. Female cyclists also reported greater confidence in strength training’s effects and more enjoyment with it. A lack of interest or motivation to perform strength training was almost exclusively reported by male cyclists, which might explain some of the disparity in engagement between the sexes during the race season.
For the professional road cyclists in our study, fatigue, travelling, and racing emerged as primary challenges to maintaining consistent strength training, which stands in contrast with amateur long-distance triathletes who cited time restrictions and knowledge as their greatest barriers [33]. Unsurprisingly, our study’s cyclists identified time constraints and lack of knowledge challenges less than amateur triathletes have, for professional cyclists are often full-time athletes and can access some of the best expertise and coaching resources available. The challenges of fatigue, travelling, and racing are closely interconnected, however, especially during the race season. Before the race season, fewer competitions and less travel make fatigue from strength training less problematic. However, during the season, frequent competitions make minimising fatigue and interference from strength training crucial, for cyclists need to prioritise recovery in order to achieve peak performance and often neglect strength training in order to avoid extra fatigue and soreness that could impact performance [28,29,31]. Those challenges likely contribute to decreased engagement in strength training during the race season.
Cyclists often face challenges with restarting strength training after long periods of stage racing or frequent racing. Such challenges stem from fatigue due to racing as well as from the reality that the impact of fatigue and muscle soreness from strength training can be greater following periods of minimal exposure to strength training [30]. The cyclists interviewed in our study described difficulties with resuming strength training after such breaks and often experiencing greater soreness and adjusting initial sessions to be less demanding. The demanding racing and travel schedule was a chief reason for some cyclists to avoid strength training during the race season. Added to that, 21.8% of cyclists reported a lack of access to training facilities as a significant barrier, which often led them to postpone strength training or use alternative exercises such as bodyweight workouts and resistance bands, instead of conventional strength training exercises. The issue of lacking training facilities is closely linked to travelling for races or training camps. To address those challenges, teams, coaches, and cyclists may need to develop strategies to integrate strength training into the racing schedule, thereby ensuring consistent engagement despite the obstacles of fatigue, travel, and the unavailability of facilities.
The prospect of improving their cycling performance emerged as the primary rationale driving the cyclists in our study to engage in strength training. Throughout the interviews, the cyclists demonstrated a considerable depth of knowledge and reflection both on their personal strength training regimes and the research on the topic, including both the potential impact on performance and recommended methods. Most cyclists in our study who incorporated strength training reported improvements in their cycling performance as a consequence of strength training. Therefore, it is unsurprising that their decisions about strength training derived from the pursuit of improving performance. Considering the substantial body of research supporting the notion that strength training can benefit endurance and cycling performance [1–6], it is logical to expect cyclists to be well-informed and intentional in leveraging strength training’s potential to optimise their performance.
Many cyclists in our study, especially females, focused on strength training’s benefits for health, particularly bone health. The cyclists seemed to be aware both of professional cycling’s potential drawbacks for bone health [17], especially when trying to keep a low body weight [19,20], and that strength training can positively impact bone health [18]. Therefore, for many cyclists, improving or maintaining bone health was an important reason for them to engage in strength training. During interviews, some cyclists reported regularly testing for bone density and using strength training to improve or maintain their bone health. Engaging in strength training to prevent or recuperate from injuries was also common.
Last, coaching played an important role in shaping cyclists’ approaches to strength training. The results of the questionnaire showed that most cyclists had a coach and that a notable proportion had a separate strength coach as well. Those who engaged in strength training during the race season and those with separate strength coaches reported greater contentment with their coaching guidance towards strength training than other cyclists did. In our study, the quantitative data indicate the prevalence of coaching and the cyclists’ satisfaction with it, whereas the interviews offered deeper insights into how coaching has influenced decisions about training. Nine out of ten interviewees discussed coaching’s role in their strength training while highlighting variations in coaching quality, individualised guidance, and access to specialised strength training programmes. Some cyclists stressed the benefits of working with a dedicated strength coach, whereas others noted a lack of structured strength training guidance from their cycling coaches. Those findings suggest that although coaching can positively influence cyclists’ engagement in and perception of strength training, the impact may depend on the coach’s expertise and approach. That dynamic highlights the importance of tailored coaching strategies to optimise performance.
Limitations
Our findings have several limitations. First, they are based on self-reported data collected with a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. The methods may have introduced response bias and inaccuracies due to participants’ subjective recollections of their practices, challenges, and rationales when it comes to strength training. Second, although the sample size of 147 participants and 10 interviews afforded insights, it may not have been sufficiently large or diverse to generalise the findings to all professional cyclists. Third, sampling was biased towards cyclists with links to social media profiles in their rider profiles on FirstCycling.com, who were active on social media and noticed our call for participants, and who were willing to respond to the questionnaire. Fourth, we did not have data on performance indicators such as UCI points, which prevents any direct comparison between the cyclists in our study and the broader population of professional cyclists and may thus limit the generalisability of our findings. Fifth and finally, although the researcher that performed the interviews had a background as a former cyclist and could provide valuable insights into the participating cyclists’ perspectives, it could have also inadvertently biased the interview process and thus shaped the formulation and interpretation of data. Those limitations underscore the importance of interpreting our findings cautiously.
Conclusion
Our study has revealed the practices, challenges, and rationales surrounding strength training among professional road cyclists. Strength training is a common practice in the off-season and pre-season, whereas fewer cyclists engage in strength training during the race season. A typical practice in strength training among the cyclists was approximately two sessions per week during the off-or pre-season and approximately one weekly maintenance session during the race season; those sessions typically focused on maximal strength exercises targeting the lower body, often supplemented by core exercises. Participating female cyclists demonstrated more engagement and more frequent strength training than male cyclists during the pre-season and race season, while challenges such as travelling, fatigue, and racing emerged as significant barriers to maintaining a consistent strength training routine, especially during the race season. Even so, cyclists emphasised the importance of strength training for improving cycling performance, reducing the risk of injury, and promoting bone health. Coaching guidance played a crucial role in enhancing cyclists’ confidence and satisfaction with their strength training regimen, especially when provided by separate strength coaches.
Supporting information
S1 Fig. Survey: Strength training and cycling performance.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0328195.s001
(DOCX)
References
- 1. Beattie K, Kenny IC, Lyons M, Carson BP. The effect of strength training on performance in endurance athletes. Sports Med. 2014;44(6):845–65. pmid:24532151
- 2. Berryman N, Mujika I, Arvisais D, Roubeix M, Binet C, Bosquet L. Strength training for middle- and long-distance performance: a meta-analysis. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2018;13(1):57–63. pmid:28459360
- 3. Lum D, Barbosa TM. Effects of strength training on olympic time-based sport performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2019;14(10):1318–30. pmid:31672926
- 4. Mujika I, Rønnestad BR, Martin DT. Effects of increased muscle strength and muscle mass on endurance-cycling performance. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2016;11(3):283–9.
- 5. Rønnestad BR, Mujika I. Optimizing strength training for running and cycling endurance performance: a review. Scand J Med Sci Sport. 2013;24(4):603–12.
- 6. Vikmoen O, Rønnestad BR. A Comparison of the effect of strength training on cycling performance between men and women. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol. 2021;6(1):29. pmid:33803041
- 7. Yamamoto LM, Klau JF, Casa DJ, Kraemer WJ, Armstrong LE, Maresh CM. The effects of resistance training on road cycling performance among highly trained cyclists: a systematic review. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(2):560–6. pmid:20072042
- 8. Heggelund J, Fimland MS, Helgerud J, Hoff J. Maximal strength training improves work economy, rate of force development and maximal strength more than conventional strength training. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2013;113(6):1565–73. pmid:23307029
- 9. Berryman N, Mujika I, Bosquet L. Concurrent training for sports performance: the 2 sides of the medal. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2019;14(3):279–85. pmid:29809072
- 10. Rønnestad BR, Hansen J, Hollan I, Spencer M, Ellefsen S. In-season strength training cessation impairs performance variables in elite cyclists. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2015;11(6):727–35.
- 11. Rønnestad BR, Hansen EA, Raastad T. In-season strength maintenance training increases well-trained cyclists’ performance. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2010;110(6):1269–82. pmid:20799042
- 12. Wirth K, Hartmann H, Mickel C, Szilvas E, Keiner M, Sander A. Core stability in athletes: a critical analysis of current guidelines. Sports Med. 2017;47(3):401–14. pmid:27475953
- 13. Sitko S, López-laval I, Cirer-sastre R. Influence of conventional resistance training compared to core exercises on road cycling power output. Cureus J Med Sci. 2024;16(4).
- 14. Hibbs AE, Thompson KG, French D, Wrigley A, Spears I. Optimizing performance by improving core stability and core strength. Sports Med. 2008;38(12):995–1008. pmid:19026017
- 15. Clarsen B, Krosshaug T, Bahr R. Overuse injuries in professional road cyclists. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(12):2494–501.
- 16. Abt JP, Smoliga JM, Brick MJ, Jolly JT, Lephart SM, Fu FH. Relationship between cycling mechanics and core stability. J Strength Cond Res. 2007;21(4):1300–4. pmid:18076271
- 17. Martínez-Noguera FJ, Alcaraz PE, Ortolano-Ríos R, Dufour S, Marín-Pagán C. Professional cyclists have lower levels of bone markers than amateurs. Is there a risk of osteoporosis in cyclist? Bone. 2021;153:116102. pmid:34245935
- 18. Westcott WL. Resistance training is medicine: effects of strength training on health. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2012;11(4):209–16. pmid:22777332
- 19. Hoon MW, Haakonssen EC, Menaspà P, Burke LM. Racing weight and resistance training: perceptions and practices in trained male cyclists. Phys Sportsmedicine. 2019;47(4):421–6.
- 20. Haakonssen EC, Martin DT, Jenkins DG, Burke LM. Race weight: perceptions of elite female road cyclists. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2015;10(3):311–7.
- 21. Haeberle HS, Navarro SM, Power EJ, Schickendantz MS, Farrow LD, Ramkumar PN. Prevalence and epidemiology of injuries among elite cyclists in the Tour de France. Orthop J Sport Med. 2018;6(9):1–5.
- 22. Cadore EL, Izquierdo M, Pinto SS, Alberton CL, Pinto RS, Baroni BM, et al. Neuromuscular adaptations to concurrent training in the elderly: effects of intrasession exercise sequence. Age. 2012;35(3):891–903.
- 23. Chtara M, Chamari K, Chaouachi M, Chaouachi A, Koubaa D, Feki Y, et al. Effects of intra-session concurrent endurance and strength training sequence on aerobic performance and capacity. Br J Sports Med. 2005;39(8):555–60. pmid:16046343
- 24.
Ellefsen S, Baar K. Proposed mechanisms underlying the interference effect. Concurrent aerobic and strength training. Springer International Publishing; 2019. pp. 89–97.
- 25. Gravelle BL, Blessing DL. Physiological adaptation in women concurrently training for strength and endurance. J Strength Cond Res. 2000;14(1).
- 26. Assumpção CDO, Coelho L, Lima R, Dias FB, Greco CC, Denadai BS. Exercise-induced muscle damage and running economy in humans. ScientificWorldJournal. 2013:2013:189149.
- 27. Doma K, Deakin GB, Schumann M, Bentley DJ. Training considerations for optimising endurance development: an alternate concurrent training perspective. Sports Med. 2019;49(5):669–82.
- 28. Doncaster GG, Twist C. Exercise-induced muscle damage from bench press exercise impairs arm cranking endurance performance. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012;112(12):4135–42.
- 29. Doma K, Deakin GB, Bentley DJ. Implications of impaired endurance performance following single bouts of resistance training: an alternate concurrent training perspective. Sports Med. 2017;47(11):2187–200. pmid:28702901
- 30.
Doma K. Acute effects of strength exercise on subsequent endurance performance. In: Schumann M, Rønnestad B, editors. Concurrent aerobic and strength training. Springer International Publishing; 2019. pp. 155–65.
- 31. Doma K, Deakin GB. The acute effects intensity and volume of strength training on running performance. Eur J Sport Sci. 2014;14(2):107–15. pmid:24533516
- 32. Burt DG, Twist C. The effects of exercise-induced muscle damage on cycling time-trial performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(8):2185–92.
- 33. Luckin KM, Badenhorst CE, Cripps AJ, Landers GJ, Merrells RJ, Bulsara MK, et al. Strength training in long-distance triathletes: barriers and characteristics. J Strength Cond Res. 2021;35(2):495–502. pmid:29985217
- 34. ProCyclingStats. PCS Season»Racedays [Internet]. 2023. Available from: https://www.procyclingstats.com/rankings.php?date=2023-12-31&nation=&age=&zage=&page=smallerorequal&team=&offset=0&filter=Filter&p=me&s=racedays
- 35. Gallo G, Mateo-March M, Gotti D, Faelli E, Ruggeri P, Codella R. How do world class top 5 Giro d’Italia finishers train? A qualitative multiple case study. Scand J Med Sci Sport. 2022;32(12):1738–46.
- 36. Gallo G, Mateo-March M, Gotti D, Maunder E, Codella R, Ruggeri P. The weekly periodization of top 5 Tour de France general classification finishers: A multiple case study. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2023;18(11):1313–20.
- 37. Pinot J, Grappe F. A six-year monitoring case study of a top-10 cycling Grand Tour finisher. J Sports Sci. 2014;33(9):907–14.
- 38. Gallo G, Leo P, March MM, Giorgi A, Faelli E, Ruggeri P, et al. Differences in Training Characteristics Between Junior, Under 23 and Professional Cyclists. Int J Sports Med. 2022;43(14):1183–9. pmid:35533684
- 39. Sanders D, van Erp T, de Koning JJ. Intensity and load characteristics of professional road cycling: differences between men’s and women’s races. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2019;14(3):296–302. pmid:30080422
- 40. van Erp T, Sanders D, de Koning JJ. Training characteristics of male and female professional road cyclists: a 4-year retrospective analysis. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2020;15(4):534–40.
- 41. Zapico AG, Calderón FJ, Benito PJ, González CB, Parisi A, Pigozzi F, et al. Evolution of physiological and haematological parameters with training load in elite male road cyclists: a longitudinal study. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2007;47(2):191–6. pmid:17557057
- 42. Spragg J, Leo P, Swart J. The relationship between training characteristics and durability in professional cyclists across a competitive season. Eur J Sport Sci. 2023;23(4):489–98. pmid:35239466
- 43. Gallo G, Leo P, Mateo-March M, Giorgi A, Faelli E, Ruggeri P, et al. Cross-sectional differences in race demands between junior, under 23, and professional road cyclists. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2022;17(3):450–7. pmid:34996033
- 44. Sylta Ø, Tønnessen E, Seiler S. Do elite endurance athletes report their training accurately? Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2014;9(1):85–92.
- 45.
Drisko J, Maschi T. Content Analysis. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2015. Available from: https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.nord.no/lib/nord/reader.action?docID=4310782
- 46. Elo S, Kääriäinen M, Kanste O, Pölkki T, Utriainen K, Kyngäs H. Qualitative content analysis. Sage Open. 2014;4(1).