ArticleBiology of sport2025
Cyclists do not need to incorporate off-bike resistance training to increase strength, muscle-tendon structure, and pedaling performance: Exploring a high-intensity on-bike method.
Article in Biology of sport, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07658300 (Transient Neuromuscular and Muscle-Tendon Adaptations Following Strength vs Endurance-Only Training in Competitive-Level Cyclists), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
Transient Neuromuscular and Muscle-Tendon Adaptations Following Strength vs Endurance-Only Training in Competitive-Level Cyclists
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Resistance Training for Cyclists: Scientific Evidence and Practical Recommendations.Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports · 2026Review
- No Detectable Effect of Caffeine Expectancy Induced by a Placebo Capsule on Time to Exhaustion at the Respiratory Compensation Point in Trained Cyclists.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Does High-Intensity Interval Training Increase Muscle Strength, Muscle Mass, and Muscle Endurance? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This randomized controlled trial compared the effectiveness of high-intensity off- and on-bike resistance training (RT) in well-trained cyclists. Thirty-seven cyclists incorporated into their cycling routine a 10-week RT only differing in the exercise used: full squat (off-bike RT, n = 12) or high-intensity all-out pedaling efforts (on-bike RT, n = 12). RT variables like intensity (% maximal dynamic force, MDF), volume, sets, and rest were identical between groups. A third group of cyclists who continued their cycling routine but did not include additional RT stimuli was used as a control (n = 13). The cycling volume at each intensity zone was also matched between the three groups. No significant differences were found between off- and on-bike RT in any parameter. RT groups improved the maximal aerobic power (ES ≥ 0.37) and that attained at the respiratory compensation point (RCP, ES ≥ 0.20). The on-bike RT also significantly enhanced power attained at the ventilatory threshold (ES = 0.24). Off-bike MDF was meaningfully enhanced by both RT groups (ES ≥ 0.16), whereas the on-bike group also significantly increased pedaling MDF (ES = 0.67). Quadriceps size was significantly increased by the off-bike group (ES = 0.22), whereas the on-bike RT also tended to augment this parameter (ES = 0.15) and patellar tendon size (ES = 0.35). Improvements in both RT regimes for time-to-exhaustion capacity (ES ≥ 0.30) were considerable but not significant. The off-bike group tended to increase injury-related symptoms (ES ≥ 0.33). The control group significantly decreased off-and on-bike MDF (ES ≤ -0.40) and quadriceps size (ES = -0.26). These findings suggest that high-intensity on-bike RT is an effective alternative to off-bike RT to safely increase strength, muscle-tendon structure, and cycling performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.