STOP THINKING, START LIFTING

Every winter the same debate kicks off. Should cyclists be lifting heavy? Will squats make you faster? Or are you just wasting time you could be spending on the turbo?

I've had this conversation a hundred times. Everyone has an opinion. Most of them come from someone who read a headline or watched a YouTube video. So here's the actual research, the actual numbers, and what I think it means for anyone racing their bike.

THE IDEA

Simple enough. Get stronger, and the force you need per pedal stroke becomes a smaller percentage of what you're able to produce. Each push costs you less. You fatigue slower. You can respond to attacks without it emptying the tank as quickly.

The gains don't come through your aerobic system. VO2max doesn't shift from squatting. What changes is how your muscles produce force and how well they hold up when you have to do it repeatedly. Your engine stays the same but your legs get harder to break.

A lot of people think the gym will raise their FTP. It doesn't really work like that. The benefits are real but they show up in ways most people don't expect.

THE STUDY

This one comes from Rønnestad's group out of Lillehammer. It's one of the most referenced papers on this topic and it's worth actually going through properly.

The setup is important. These were elite cyclists, not someone doing their first winter on the bike. And they didn't pile gym sessions on top of a full programme. They replaced some easy riding with the strength work. That means the improvements came without increasing total training load. That detail gets missed a lot.

WHAT THEY FOUND

The strength and power numbers tell a clear story.

The riders who lifted got 20% stronger in the half squat. The ones who just rode? 3%. Jump height went up 8% versus nothing. And 30 second sprint power improved 2% in the gym group while the endurance only group actually dropped 3%. That's a 5 point gap in sprint output.

Now here's where it gets more complicated.

The 40 minute all out test showed a 4% improvement in the gym group versus a 1% drop for the riders who just rode. Sounds good. But statistically the difference between groups wasn't quite enough to call it definitive. Lactate threshold power trended upwards too but again, just missed.

VO2max didn't budge. Neither did efficiency.

So what does that actually mean? In 10 weeks, heavy lifting clearly improved strength, explosiveness, and sprint capacity. The longer sustained performance stuff pointed in the right direction but wasn't nailed down over that timeframe. Not a surprise when you're dealing with elite riders who are already close to their ceiling.

GIVE IT LONGER AND THE PICTURE CHANGES

Rønnestad's group also ran a longer version of this. 25 weeks. Same kind of athletes. Same heavy lifting approach. And that one did find clear improvements in peak aerobic power, lactate threshold power, and the 40 minute all out test for the gym group compared to endurance only.

The interesting bit: the 40 minute improvement was linked to a change in pedalling mechanics. The stronger riders started producing peak torque earlier in the pedal stroke. Better force application through the whole revolution. That's not just stronger legs, that's stronger legs working more effectively on the bike.

So the pattern is: 10 weeks gets your strength and sprint numbers up. Give it 25 weeks and the sustained performance benefits come through too. Patience matters.

Other research backs this up. Studies on well trained cyclists have shown improvements in time trial capacity when strength and endurance are managed properly together. One showed that riders who lifted had better 5 minute all out power after 3 hours of submaximal riding. That's your end of race kick after sitting in the bunch all day. That's the bit that actually wins you races.

THE WIDER EVIDENCE

There aren't a massive number of cycling specific trials on this. Sample sizes tend to be small. But when you look at the wider body of work across endurance sports, the story is consistent. Strength training improves performance in efforts lasting longer than about 75 seconds. And recent cycling specific reviews confirm that holds true for riders too.

The one thing that comes up again and again: VO2max doesn't change. Your aerobic ceiling stays put. What improves is how well your muscles produce force, how long they can keep doing it, and in some cases how economical you are when you're already fatigued. Your engine stays the same. Your chassis gets stronger.

WHERE THIS MATTERS IN RACING

Think about what actually happens in a road race. You don't sit at threshold for 40 minutes and roll home. You sit in the bunch, follow wheels, close gaps, respond to attacks, sprint out of corners, and then try to have something left for the finish. Every single one of those moments is a short, high force effort.

That's exactly what the research shows lifting improves most. Sprint power. Repeated hard efforts. The ability to put out big watts for 10 to 60 seconds without it emptying you.

Put some numbers on it. Say your max 10 second power goes from 1000W to 1200W. That 900W effort to close a gap just went from 90% of your max to 75%. Completely different cost. Do that 30 times across a stage of the Rás and the difference is the gap between being in the move and watching it go up the road.

If you've ever been popped on a short riser because you just didn't have the legs, that's the problem the gym fixes.

WHERE IT HELPS LESS

If your only goal is raising FTP or time trial power, the gym isn't the most direct route. The 10 week data didn't nail down a clear sustained performance gain. The 25 week study did, but it took time to get there.

Pure time triallists are probably better off getting their intervals right, fuelling properly, doing the volume, and sorting recovery. Those are more direct levers for threshold work.

But most of us aren't doing 40ks against the clock. Most of us race on the road. And road racing is constant surges, attacks, and closing gaps. That's where the gym pays off.

THE REAL PROBLEM

The biggest risk with adding gym work isn't that it doesn't do anything. It clearly does. The risk is it wrecks your bike training.

If squatting on a Tuesday means your Thursday intervals are rubbish, you've gained nothing. If you're constantly heavy-legged on your long ride, your endurance work suffers. If you're stacking fatigue faster than you can recover from, the whole thing falls apart.

The research that shows the best results handled this by swapping out some easy riding for gym time. Not piling more on top. Swap, don't stack.

If you're already doing 15 to 20 hours a week on the bike, fitting two gym sessions in without destroying something else takes thought. If you're on 8 to 10 hours, there's more room to play with.

That last point matters. The research on in-season maintenance is clear: if you stop lifting during the race season you lose what you built. One session a week holds the gains. Zero doesn't.

BOTTOM LINE

Heavy lifting works for cyclists. The strength, sprint, and power gains are clear. Give it long enough and the sustained performance stuff comes through too.

It won't raise your VO2max. It won't magically bump your FTP. But for road racing, where the reality is surges, attacks, and having to respond over and over again, stronger legs make you harder to get rid of.

It has to fit your week though. If it wrecks the sessions that actually matter on the bike, leave it. The best programme is always the one you can actually do well, recover from, and keep going across a full season.

So stop overthinking it. If you race on the road and you can fit it in, get in the gym. The evidence is there. The gains are there. Now go squat.