The Off-Season Strength Block for Cyclists: What the October 2026 Evidence Says

What Kind of Evidence This Is

The six authors, from universities and a hospital research institute in Madrid and Murcia, searched PubMed up to May 2026 and gave priority to controlled trials in cyclists. It is a narrative review, which they say makes it prone to selection bias. Where cyclist trials were missing they drew on other populations, and their summary figure notes that not all parameters have been directly established as optimal for cyclists. Several trials discussed come from the authors’ own group, including every on-bike trial that sets load as a share of maximal pedalling force.

The Recommendations

Weekly frequency and the on-bike option rest on cycling trials. Set counts, rest, velocity loss, lifting speed and the three-hour gap come mainly from non-cyclist studies, as the review itself says.

The 60–85% band also starts lower than many classic cycling trials, which mostly used 75–90% 1RM, and the 2026 meta-analysis the review leans on was limited to heavy training, defined as 80% 1RM or more. Some newer cycling trials sit lower in the band, such as Barranco-Gil et al. (2025): full squats at 70% 1RM twice a week for 10 weeks raised Wingate sprint performance by 4.1% and quadriceps cross-sectional area by 2.5%, against falls of 4.9% and 2.3% in riders who only rode.

What Lifting Does for Cycling

That meta-analysis, by Llanos-Lagos and colleagues in the European Journal of Applied Physiology, pooled 17 controlled studies with 262 cyclists (60 of them women), running 5 to 25 weeks at one to three sessions a week. Compared with riding alone, heavy lifting improved cycling efficiency, anaerobic power, and performance in time trials and time-to-exhaustion tests. It did not significantly change VO₂max, power at VO₂max or maximal metabolic steady state. The authors rate the certainty of the evidence as low.

In Sunde et al. (2010), competitive cyclists who added half squats (4 sets of 4-rep max, three times a week for 8 weeks) improved cycling economy by 4.8% and time to exhaustion at maximal aerobic power by 17.2%, with no change in VO₂max or body weight. In Rønnestad et al. (2010), 11 of 20 well-trained cyclists added four lower-body exercises twice a week for 12 weeks; they improved mean power in a 40-minute all-out trial, and their thigh muscle grew without an increase in body mass.

Weight gain is the worry the review takes on directly: it reports that 45% of the surveyed professionals feared gaining too much muscle. In an 8-week trial in professional cyclists, both a traditional and a power-oriented program added muscle and reduced fat without changing total body mass (Gil-Cabrera et al., 2021). Programmed as described, the review concludes, lifting does not appear to hurt performance through unwanted hypertrophy.

Velocity Loss: Stopping Sets Before Failure

Velocity loss is how much bar speed drops across a set. The review treats it as a real-time gauge of fatigue: the larger the loss, the closer the set is to failure. The 10–20% cut-off comes mainly from non-cyclist studies. In Pareja-Blanco et al. (2017), 22 young men squatted for 8 weeks, stopping sets at either 20% or 40% loss. The 20% group gained as much squat strength with 40% fewer repetitions, improved jump height more (9.5% vs 3.5%), and added less muscle in two of the quadriceps.

In cyclists, two trials from the review authors’ group compared sets stopped at 10% loss, with loads of about 65% 1RM, against traditional heavy lifting. In professional men (Gil-Cabrera et al., 2021) and competitive women (Montalvo-Pérez et al., 2021), the 10% approach improved strength at least as much; neither trial compared cut-offs. The review is also candid that the classic trials with the clearest cycling gains often trained close to failure, so stopping early is a way to manage fatigue, not a proven requirement.

Measuring it takes a device that tracks bar speed on every rep, and the review gives no device-free equivalent. Substitutes are imperfect: in Rodríguez-Rosell et al. (2020), the number of squat reps men could do to failure at a given %1RM varied widely (coefficient of variation 26–34%), and Paulsen et al. (2025) found perceived reps in reserve and bar speed “complementary—but not interchangeable.”

Interference: What Riding Costs the Lifting, and the Reverse

Schumann et al. (2022) pooled 43 studies comparing combined training with the same strength program alone. Adding aerobic training did not compromise maximal strength or muscle growth, but it reduced gains in explosive strength, more so when both were done in the same session than when they were at least 3 hours apart. Whether the aerobic work was cycling or running made no difference.

The reverse depends on how hard the lifting is. In Tundidor-Duque et al. (2026), 41 moderately trained men squatted at 70–85% 1RM and then ran at 90–105% of maximal aerobic speed, twice a week for 8 weeks, stopping sets at 0%, 15% or 40% velocity loss. A fourth group only ran. Every group improved maximal aerobic speed, the run-only group most; among lifters, the smaller the velocity loss, the larger the gain. The 40% group added the most muscle, and only the 15% and 40% groups gained more 1RM strength than the runners.

Hence the review’s rule: on a shared day, keep lifting and riding at least 3 hours apart where possible, lifting first if strength is the priority and riding first if the ride matters more — a rule drawn largely from non-cyclist research.

An Example 12-Week Off-Season Block

The review sets ranges, not a calendar. The block below is Paincave’s example: every number sits inside those ranges, and its shape follows the cycling trials the review cites, most of which ran 8 to 12 weeks at two sessions a week, often with rising loads. It runs alongside the riding in our base training guide.

Before Week 1: the Transition

Taylor et al. (2021) studied the transition between season end and the next preparatory period in 11 elite cyclists, who cut training load by 64% for 3 weeks. Those who included 3 sets of 3 × 30-second sprints in one easy ride a week produced 7.3% more mean power in a 20-minute test six weeks into the preparatory period; those who only rode easy changed by −1.3%. It is one small study, and sprints are not lifting.

A Session in Weeks 7–9

• Squat, full or half: 3 sets
• Hip thrust: 3 sets
• Split squat or lunge: 3 sets
• Calf raise or deadlift: 3 sets

Load each lift at 75–80% of its own 1RM, end each set at 15% velocity loss, rest 2–4 minutes, and lift every rep as fast as possible. The exercises are ones the review names or its cycling trials used. The percentages assume a current 1RM, and the review sets no testing protocol. The survey authors stress the need for expert guidance, and a qualified coach can set starting loads.

After Week 12

When the race season starts, drop to one session a week. In Rønnestad and colleagues’ in-season study (2010), cyclists who lifted twice a week for a 12-week preparatory period and then once a week for the first 13 weeks of racing kept their gains in strength and thigh muscle size, and improved maximal aerobic power and 40-minute power more than riders who did not lift. The groups were small: six riders each.

No Gym: On-Bike Torque Training

For riders without a gym, the review’s alternative is high-load torque training. Classic low-cadence intervals rarely exceed 40–50% of maximal dynamic force (MDF), too little for strength in the review’s view. The newer protocol is short and maximal: 5 sets of 7 all-out pedal strokes at about 70% of MDF with 4 minutes of recovery, done at 40–50 rpm on a 6% slope in the trials. In Barranco-Gil et al. (2025) it matched squats at the same relative load for strength, sprint power and muscle size. In a three-arm trial of 46 well-trained men (de Pablos et al., 2026), only the 70% version, not a 35% one, produced significant within-group gains in sprint power, maximal aerobic power and quadriceps size, although the two versions did not differ significantly from each other.

The caveats are the review’s own: setting the load requires MDF testing equipment, the trials are few and mostly in young, well-trained men, and it is unknown whether on-bike work brings the bone benefits of lifting.

Women, Masters Riders and Bone

Female trials point the same way: in a trial of 19 female cyclists, the 11 who added heavy lifting for 11 weeks improved 40-minute power and cycling economy (Vikmoen et al., 2016). In the survey, more women than men lifted in the pre-season (96.6% vs 85.3%) and during the race season (66.1% vs 36.4%). For older riders the data are thin: in Del Vecchio et al. (2019), 25 masters road cyclists (group averages 49–57 years) trained for 12 weeks, and the group combining strength and sprint work gained lower-limb lean mass and beat controls on 30-second sprint work. The review lists masters and female cyclists among its research gaps. For other age-related training changes, see our masters cycling guide.

Bone is the other reason to lift. Hilkens et al. (2023) found low lumbar-spine bone mineral density in 64% of advanced-career male and 45% of early- and advanced-career female elite cyclists, in a study of 93 riders. In professional cyclists, 7 weeks of power-oriented lifting increased bone mineral content (Valenzuela et al., 2021). The review calls this evidence preliminary.

Sources

• The review: de Pablos R, Sánchez-Redondo IR, Alejo LB, Pallarés JG, Barranco-Gil D, Valenzuela PL, “Resistance Training for Cyclists: Scientific Evidence and Practical Recommendations,” Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports 36(10):e70377, published online 3 October 2026 (open access).
• Meta-analyses: Llanos-Lagos C, Ramirez-Campillo R, Sáez de Villarreal E, “Heavy strength training effects on physiological determinants of endurance cyclist performance: a systematic review with meta-analysis,” European Journal of Applied Physiology 126(1):193–222 (2026); Schumann M et al., “Compatibility of concurrent aerobic and strength training for skeletal muscle size and function,” Sports Medicine 52(3):601–612 (2022).
• Cycling trials: Sunde A et al., “Maximal strength training improves cycling economy in competitive cyclists,” J Strength Cond Res 24(8):2157–2165 (2010); Rønnestad BR, Hansen EA, Raastad T, “Effect of heavy strength training on thigh muscle cross-sectional area, performance determinants, and performance in well-trained cyclists,” Eur J Appl Physiol 108(5):965–975 (2010), and “In-season strength maintenance training increases well-trained cyclists’ performance,” Eur J Appl Physiol 110(6):1269–1282 (2010); Vikmoen O et al., Scand J Med Sci Sports 26(4):384–396 (2016); Barranco-Gil D et al., “Off- and on-bike resistance training in cyclists,” Med Sci Sports Exerc 57(2):296–304 (2025); de Pablos R et al., “The role of pedaling intensity during torque training in cyclists,” Scand J Med Sci Sports 36(5):e70294 (2026); Gil-Cabrera J et al., Int J Sports Physiol Perform 16(4):496–503 (2021); Montalvo-Pérez A et al., Front Physiol 12:586113 (2021); Valenzuela PL et al., Int J Sports Physiol Perform 16(5):674–681 (2021); Del Vecchio L et al., J Strength Cond Res 33(1):66–79 (2019); Taylor M et al., “The inclusion of sprints in low-intensity sessions during the transition period of elite cyclists,” Int J Sports Physiol Perform 16(10):1502–1509 (2021).
• Velocity loss and effort: Pareja-Blanco F et al., Scand J Med Sci Sports 27(7):724–735 (2017); Tundidor-Duque RM et al., “Velocity loss during resistance training: implications for concurrent training adaptations,” Scand J Med Sci Sports 36(3):e70265 (2026); Rodríguez-Rosell D et al., J Strength Cond Res 34(9):2537–2547 (2020); Paulsen G et al., PeerJ 13:e19797 (2025).
• Practice and bone health: Vikestad V, Lyngstad IK, Dalen T, “Strength training among professional UCI road cyclists: practices, challenges, and rationales,” PLoS One 20(7):e0328195 (2025); Hilkens L et al., “Low bone mineral density and associated risk factors in elite cyclists at different stages of a professional cycling career,” Med Sci Sports Exerc 55(5):957–965 (2023).

All papers were read in October 2026 through their published abstracts; the de Pablos review was read in full. This article is general information, not individual training or medical advice.

Related Articles

• Strength Training for Cyclists: The Benchmarks That Actually Matter
• Base Training Done Right: Build Your Aerobic Engine
• Masters Cycling: The Science of Getting Faster After 40 (and 50)