ReviewScandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports2026
Resistance Training for Cyclists: Scientific Evidence and Practical Recommendations.
Review in Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Growing evidence supports strength or resistance training (RT) as an effective method for enhancing cycling performance, but many cyclists remain reluctant to incorporate it due to perceived detrimental effects, such as excessive residual fatigue and unwanted hypertrophy. Furthermore, controversy persists regarding optimal training methodologies. This narrative review aims to summarize current evidence on the effects of RT on cycling performance, as well as to address its potential impact on body composition and bone health. We also provide evidence-based recommendations on best practices for RT implementation. Overall, the addition of 1-2 weekly sessions of RT with moderate-to-high loads (60%-85% 1RM), 2-4 sets per exercise across 3-5 compound lower-body movements, and limited intra-set fatigue (10%-20% velocity loss) has proven beneficial for improving key cycling performance indicators. Recent evidence also suggests that high-load on-bike torque training may serve as an effective strategy when conventional RT is not feasible. When implemented as described, RT does not appear to negatively affect performance through unwanted hypertrophy. Although further research is warranted, RT also emerges as a potentially effective strategy to counteract the low bone mineral density commonly observed in competitive cyclists. However, the magnitude of these benefits largely depends on precise programming, particularly intensity, proximity to failure, and temporal separation from endurance training sessions. In summary, current evidence supports the role of RT for improving both health and performance in cyclists, but further research is warranted to determine the optimal training parameters to maximize its benefits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.