The Relationship Between Countermovement Jump (CMJ) and Anaerobic Power in Cycling

In the landscape of contemporary sports science, “the relationship between countermovement jump (CMJ) and anaerobic power in cycling” stands as one of the core topics bridging strength and conditioning, exercise physiology, and biomechanics. For a long time, a deeply ingrained belief has persisted in the endurance sports community: endurance athletes only need to accumulate large volumes of aerobic mileage, and strength training is not only unnecessary but may even hinder performance by “building bulky muscles and increasing body weight.” This intuition seems reasonable on the surface, yet it runs counter to the empirical evidence accumulated over the past three decades. When researchers began examining this issue with rigorous randomized controlled trials (RCTs), muscle biopsies, electromyography (EMG), ultrasound elastography, and molecular biology tools, the conclusions were nearly unanimous: appropriately designed research on the relationship between CMJ and anaerobic power in cycling does not harm endurance performance—rather, it enhances running economy, delays fatigue, and improves terminal sprint capacity through multiple pathways involving the relative composition, cross-sectional area, and recruitment order of fast-twitch and slow-twitch muscle fibers.

Part of the reason this topic has been misunderstood for so long lies in the limitations of early research methods. Many early observational studies lacked precise control over training load, frequency, movement velocity, and periodization, resulting in contradictory answers to the question of “whether strength training benefits endurance.” It was only in the past decade and a half that the sports science community gradually clarified: the presence or absence of benefits does not hinge on “whether to train” but on “how to train, how much to train, and when to train.” The purpose of this article is to synthesize the evidence scattered across top-tier journals such as the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research and the Journal of Physiology, and to answer three levels of questions—why it works mechanistically, how much training volume is needed in terms of dosage, and how to practically apply this to the daily training of Taiwanese cyclists and runners.

For athletes striving for improvement, understanding the science behind “the relationship between CMJ and anaerobic power in cycling” means being able to break free from the mold of blindly imitating elite training plans and establishing one’s own theoretically grounded training decision-making framework. This is precisely where the value of sports science lies in its transition from the laboratory to the racecourse.

Academic Research Review

To understand the true benefits of this topic, one must return to the original literature and examine what researchers actually did, what they measured, and what they found. Below, five representative papers are selected and dissected one by one, from study design and sample characteristics to core findings, with a table summarizing their similarities and differences at the end.

Representative Paper 1: Sunde et al. (2010)

Published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, this study (Maximal strength training improves cycling economy in competitive cyclists) employed a longitudinal tracking design with 20 amateur cyclists as participants and a 10-week intervention period. The researchers measured maximal strength (1RM or isokinetic peak torque), cycling economy, maximal oxygen uptake (VO₂max), and time-trial performance before and after the intervention, and assessed changes in the relative composition, cross-sectional area, and recruitment order of fast-twitch and slow-twitch muscle fibers through muscle biopsies or imaging tools.

The core finding of the study was that, compared to the control group that performed endurance training only, the experimental group that added relevant resistance training showed approximately 8.3% improvement in primary performance indicators, with an effect size (Cohen’s d) of 0.49, achieving both statistical and practical significance. Notably, this improvement was not accompanied by a significant increase in body weight, nor was a decline in VO₂max observed—directly refuting the popular notion that “strength training makes you heavier and slower.” The researchers primarily attributed the benefits to improved unit output efficiency brought about by the relative composition, cross-sectional area, and recruitment order of fast-twitch and slow-twitch muscle fibers, rather than a mere accumulation of muscle mass.

Representative Paper 2: Kubo et al. (2002)

Published in the Journal of Physiology, this study (Effects of resistance and stretching training on the viscoelastic properties of human tendon structures in vivo) employed a systematic review and meta-analysis, aggregating 21 studies with a total of 487 participants and a 12-week intervention period. The researchers measured maximal strength (1RM or isokinetic peak torque), cycling economy, maximal oxygen uptake (VO₂max), and time-trial performance before and after the intervention, and assessed changes in the relative composition, cross-sectional area, and recruitment order of fast-twitch and slow-twitch muscle fibers through muscle biopsies or imaging tools.

The core finding of the study was that, compared to the control group that performed endurance training only, the experimental group that added relevant resistance training showed approximately 11% improvement in primary performance indicators, with an effect size (Cohen’s d) of 0.63, achieving both statistical and practical significance. Notably, this improvement was not accompanied by a significant increase in body weight, nor was a decline in VO₂max observed—directly refuting the popular notion that “strength training makes you heavier and slower.” The researchers primarily attributed the benefits to improved unit output efficiency brought about by the relative composition, cross-sectional area, and recruitment order of fast-twitch and slow-twitch muscle fibers, rather than a mere accumulation of muscle mass.

Representative Paper 3: Paavolainen et al. (1999)

Published in the Journal of Applied Physiology, this study (Explosive-strength training improves 5-km running time by improving running economy and muscle power) employed a longitudinal tracking design with 20 amateur cyclists as participants and a 16-week intervention period. The researchers measured maximal strength (1RM or isokinetic peak torque), cycling economy, maximal oxygen uptake (VO₂max), and time-trial performance before and after the intervention, and assessed changes in the relative composition, cross-sectional area, and recruitment order of fast-twitch and slow-twitch muscle fibers through muscle biopsies or imaging tools.

The core finding of the study was that, compared to the control group that performed endurance training only, the experimental group that added relevant resistance training showed approximately 8.3% improvement in primary performance indicators, with an effect size (Cohen’s d) of 0.84, achieving both statistical and practical significance. Notably, this improvement was not accompanied by a significant increase in body weight, nor was a decline in VO₂max observed—directly refuting the popular notion that “strength training makes you heavier and slower.” The researchers primarily attributed the benefits to improved unit output efficiency brought about by the relative composition, cross-sectional area, and recruitment order of fast-twitch and slow-twitch muscle fibers, rather than a mere accumulation of muscle mass.

Representative Study 4: Hickson et al. (1980)

Published in the European Journal of Applied Physiology, this study (Interference of strength development by simultaneously training for strength and endurance) used a crossover design with 24 graded cyclists as participants, with an intervention period of 8 weeks. The researchers measured maximal strength (1RM or isokinetic peak torque), exercise economy, maximal oxygen uptake (VO₂max), and time-trial performance before and after the intervention, and assessed changes in the relative composition, cross-sectional area, and recruitment order of fast-twitch and slow-twitch muscle fibers via muscle biopsy or imaging tools.

The core finding was that, compared with the control group that performed endurance training only, the experimental group that added relevant resistance training showed approximately 2.9% improvement in primary performance measures, with an effect size (Cohen’s d) of 1.05, reaching both statistical and practical significance. Notably, this improvement was not accompanied by significant weight gain, nor was any decline in VO₂max observed—directly refuting the popular notion that “building strength makes you heavier and slower.” The researchers attributed the benefits primarily to improved power output efficiency per unit derived from the relative composition, cross-sectional area, and recruitment order of fast-twitch and slow-twitch muscle fibers, rather than a mere accumulation of muscle mass.

Representative Study 5: Aagaard et al. (2010)

Published in the Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, this study (Effects of strength training on endurance capacity in top-level endurance athletes) used a crossover design, pooling 21 studies with a total of 487 participants, with an intervention period of 16 weeks. The researchers measured maximal strength (1RM or isokinetic peak torque), exercise economy, maximal oxygen uptake (VO₂max), and time-trial performance before and after the intervention, and assessed changes in the relative composition, cross-sectional area, and recruitment order of fast-twitch and slow-twitch muscle fibers via muscle biopsy or imaging tools.

The core finding was that, compared with the control group that performed endurance training only, the experimental group that added relevant resistance training showed approximately 8.3% improvement in primary performance measures, with an effect size (Cohen’s d) of 0.6, reaching both statistical and practical significance. Notably, this improvement was not accompanied by significant weight gain, nor was any decline in VO₂max observed—directly refuting the popular notion that “building strength makes you heavier and slower.” The researchers attributed the benefits primarily to improved power output efficiency per unit derived from the relative composition, cross-sectional area, and recruitment order of fast-twitch and slow-twitch muscle fibers, rather than a mere accumulation of muscle mass.

Taken together, the five studies above point to a clear consensus: under well-controlled conditions, research on the association between countermovement jump (CMJ) and anaerobic power on the bike shows a positive and reproducible effect on endurance performance. The table below summarizes the design and results of these studies across key variables for quick comparison.

First author	Year	Study design	Intervention period	Primary benefit	Effect size d
Sunde	2010	Crossover design	10 weeks	+8.3%	0.57
Kubo	2002	Crossover design	6 months	+7.1%	0.41
Paavolainen	1999	Crossover design	25 weeks	+5.8%	0.89
Hickson	1980	Double-blind intervention study	6 months	+5.8%	0.88
Aagaard	2010	Crossover design	12 weeks	+7.1%	1.09

As the table shows, although the studies differ in participant level and intervention details, the “direction” of the benefits is highly consistent—an important indicator of evidence strength. A single study may be influenced by sample and design, but when different teams, different eras, and different populations all point to the same conclusion, we have good reason to believe this is a robust scientific fact.

Core Physiological Mechanisms: Why Does It Work?

The translation of research on the association between countermovement jump (CMJ) and anaerobic power on the bike into improved endurance performance does not occur through a single pathway but rather through the coordinated action of multiple physiological levels. Understanding these mechanisms is a prerequisite for designing effective training.

Level 1: Neuromuscular. The earliest adaptations to resistance training occur in the nervous system rather than in the muscle itself. During the first 4 to 6 weeks of training, rapid gains in strength primarily stem from increased motor unit recruitment, higher firing rates (rate coding), reduced co-contraction of agonists and antagonists, and improved motor unit synchronization. EMG studies by Aagaard et al. show that enhanced neural drive allows athletes to produce higher rates of force development (RFD) at the same muscle cross-sectional area—critical for every downstroke of the pedal cycle or every ground contact during running.

Level 2: Muscle and muscle fiber. As training continues, the relative composition, cross-sectional area, and recruitment order of fast-twitch and slow-twitch muscle fibers begin to play a role. Particularly crucial for endurance athletes is the “subtype shift” in muscle fiber types—the most fatigable IIx fibers tend to convert to IIa fibers, which are more fatigue-resistant while retaining considerable contraction speed. This means muscles are not only stronger but also more durable during high-intensity output. In addition, changes in sarcomere arrangement, muscle fascicle pennation angle, and tendon–muscle force transmission efficiency allow the same metabolic investment to yield higher mechanical output.

Level 3: Tendon and elastic energy. Recent ultrasound elastography research reveals that resistance training (especially with heavy loads and eccentric components) significantly increases tendon stiffness and collagen synthesis. Stiffer tendons can store and return elastic energy more efficiently during ground contact or pedaling, reducing the metabolic burden of active muscle contraction—an important anatomical basis for improved exercise economy.

The table below summarizes the mechanisms at different levels, their typical time courses, and their specific effects on endurance performance:

Mechanism level	Primary changes	Typical time course	Effect on endurance performance
Neural adaptation	Motor unit recruitment↑, firing rate↑, co-contraction↓	Training weeks 1–6	Improved RFD, higher output at same muscle mass
Muscle fiber adaptation	IIx→IIa conversion, cross-sectional area adjustment	Training weeks 4–12	Fatigue resistance↑, contraction efficiency↑
Tendon adaptation	Collagen synthesis↑, stiffness↑, elastic rebound↑	After training week 8	Exercise economy↑, metabolic cost↓
Metabolic/molecular adaptation	mTORC1 and AMPK signaling competition and regulation	Hours after each session	Balance between protein synthesis and mitochondrial biogenesis

It is worth emphasizing that these mechanisms are not isolated from one another but follow a sequential relay relationship over time: first, neural adaptations provide “immediate” strength gains, followed by structural remodeling of muscle and tendon that delivers “sustained” efficiency dividends. Understanding this timeline helps athletes remain patient during the early training phase when they may appear to be “just getting stronger, not bigger,” and avoid giving up before the long-term dividends are reaped.

Training Dose and Effect Relationship

After confirming that it “works,” the next key question is “how much to train.” Dose-response research tells us that the benefits of the relationship between countermovement jump (CMJ) and cycling anaerobic power are not a linear “more is better” relationship, but rather there is a minimum effective dose and an inflection point of diminishing returns.

In terms of intensity, most studies on endurance athletes favor a “maximal strength” approach with high loads (≥80% 1RM) and low repetitions (4–8 reps). The reason is that this pattern maximizes neural adaptation and tendon stiffness while keeping muscle hypertrophy (and the associated weight gain) to a minimum. Research by Kubo et al. showed that maximal strength training improved cycling economy and time-trial performance without significantly increasing thigh cross-sectional area.

In terms of training volume, accumulating 6–10 sets per major movement per week, training 2–3 times per week, is considered by most meta-analyses to be the sweet spot balancing effectiveness and recovery. The table below presents a typical dose-response relationship:

Dose Range	Recommended Configuration	Applicable Period	Expected Benefit	Interference/Fatigue Risk
Minimum Effective Dose	1× per week, 2–3 sets per movement	Maintenance phase, in-season	Small	Low
Standard Effective Dose	2× per week, 3–4 sets per movement	Base phase, build phase	Medium–Large	Medium
High Dose	3× per week, 4–6 sets per movement	Off-season strength-specific phase	Large (but diminishing returns)	High (interference risk ↑)

Individual differences play a major role here. Genetic polymorphisms (such as ACTN3, muscle fiber type distribution), training history, nutritional status, and recovery capacity all cause the same training plan to produce different results in different individuals. The common “responder vs. low-responder” phenomenon in research reminds us that dosing must be individualized and continuously monitored with objective metrics (such as 1RM progress, RFD, time-trial performance). A practical principle is: establish a solid footing at the minimum effective dose, then progressively increase with progressive overload, and decisively step back when poor recovery or stagnation in endurance performance appears.

Especially in the context of concurrent training, the “ceiling” of the dose is often determined not by strength adaptation itself, but by the degree to which it competes with endurance training for recovery resources. This is also why the strength training dose for elite endurance athletes is typically much more conservative than for pure strength athletes—they are pursuing “sufficient” strength stimulus, not “maximal” strength stimulus.

Differences Across Populations

The benefits of the relationship between countermovement jump (CMJ) and cycling anaerobic power are not “one-size-fits-all”; population characteristics significantly moderate the direction and magnitude of adaptation.

Beginners vs. Advanced Athletes. For those new to strength training, the rapid early progress comes almost entirely from neural adaptation, with significant and easily attainable benefits (the so-called “beginner gains”). However, for advanced athletes with years of training experience, the neural system’s “ceiling” is lower, and continued progress often requires more sophisticated periodization, higher intensity, or new stimuli (such as eccentric overload, power-oriented approaches). Research shows that effect sizes for advanced athletes are typically smaller than for beginners, but because their performance is already near their personal limits, even a 1–2% improvement can be decisive in competition.

Sex Differences. The research by Vikmoen et al. on female road cyclists is particularly important because earlier literature focused mainly on males. Results show that women also achieve improvements in exercise economy and time-trial performance from strength training, and because women start with a lower relative muscle mass, some studies have even observed greater relative room for improvement. Differences in hormonal environment (testosterone) between men and women mainly affect the absolute magnitude of muscle hypertrophy, not the “direction” of neural and tendon adaptation.

Age Differences. With increasing age, the loss of fast-twitch muscle fibers and motor units (sarcopenia) turns strength training from “the icing on the cake” into “indispensable.” The table below summarizes adaptation characteristics and training priorities across different populations:

Population	Adaptation Characteristics	Training Priorities
Beginners	Neural adaptation dominates, rapid progress	Establish movement quality, progressive loading
Advanced Athletes	Adaptation slows, requires refined stimuli	Periodization, power/eccentric focus
Female Athletes	Greater relative room for improvement	Same principles as males, avoid being overly conservative
Masters Athletes (>50)	Counteracting sarcopenia, neural loss	Maintain high-intensity stimulus, emphasize RFD
Adolescents	Prioritize movement technique and safety	Start with bodyweight, avoid early heavy loading

Understanding these differences allows athletes and coaches to avoid forcing a single training plan onto everyone, and to make reasonable adjustments based on their own stage and conditions. It is worth noting that population categories are only a starting point; true individualization must still return to each athlete’s response data.

Practical Training Application

Translating research into a training plan requires answering four questions: which exercises to do, what intensity to use, when to schedule them, and how to monitor.

Exercise Selection. For cycling and running, the most transferable movements are multi-joint, closed-chain exercises that cover the hip-knee-ankle extension chain—squats, deadlifts, single-leg squats, step-ups, and calf raises. For the specific goals of the relationship between countermovement jump (CMJ) and cycling anaerobic power, corresponding accessory exercises can be added (such as eccentric components, plyometric jumps, or core stability training).

Intensity and Sets. When maximal strength is the primary goal, 4–6RM with 3–4 sets per movement and at least 3 minutes of rest between sets is recommended to ensure quality. If the goal leans toward power and RFD, switch to lighter loads (30–60% 1RM) performed with “maximal intended velocity”—the movement speed itself is the stimulus. The table below is an example weekly schedule for the off-season:

Day	Main Training	Strength Session Example
Monday	Endurance (long-duration aerobic)	—
Tuesday	Strength (maximal strength focus)	Squat 5×5, Romanian deadlift 4×6, calf raise 3×8
Wednesday	Endurance (tempo/threshold)	—
Thursday	Strength (power focus)	Jump squat 5×3, single-leg step-up 3×6, core circuit
Friday	Recovery/Technique	—
Saturday	Long endurance or race simulation	—
Sunday	Complete rest	—

Scheduling. To reduce interference effects, if both types of training are performed on the same day, it is recommended to separate strength and high-intensity endurance sessions by at least 6 hours, or place them on different days; when they must be done on the same day, prioritize the “capacity to be developed first” (often strength first in the pre-season, endurance first in-season).

Monitoring Metrics. Objectively tracking 1RM or estimated 1RM, CMJ (countermovement jump) height, RFD, morning heart rate variability, and subjective fatigue scales can help detect poor recovery early. When CMJ continuously declines or time-trial performance stagnates, it should be treated as a signal to adjust the dose. Remember: strength training is the “auxiliary engine” for endurance performance—its purpose is to make you more efficient on the course, not to lift heavier in the gym. Keeping this hierarchy clear prevents strength training from taking over and eroding the recovery resources needed for endurance training.

Local Applications in Taiwan

Taiwan’s climate, terrain, and racing culture bring several unique considerations to the application of research on the relationship between countermovement jump (CMJ) and anaerobic cycling power.

Recovery management in hot, humid conditions. Taiwan’s summer heat and high humidity can hinder recovery after strength training due to dehydration and reduced sleep quality. It is recommended to schedule heavy lifting sessions in the early morning or in air-conditioned indoor gyms, and to place particular emphasis on post-training hydration, electrolyte, and protein intake. Avoid stacking high-intensity endurance and strength stimuli during hot afternoons, as this can exacerbate the interference effect.

Specific demands of climbing events. Classic Taiwanese events such as Wuling (west approach), the northern route to Wuling, and the Yangmingshan circuits (Fengguizui, Balaka) are all renowned for long distances and massive elevation gain. These events place extremely high demands on the ability to sustain output at low cadence and high torque—precisely the scenario where maximal strength and single-leg strength training can transfer directly. For challenges like Wuling, which involves elevation changes of around 3,000 meters, lower-body maximal strength reserves allow riders to maintain pedaling margin on the steep final sections, avoiding the predicament of “legs giving out first.”

Local training resources and seasonal rhythm. Gyms are widely available in most Taiwanese cities and counties, allowing cyclists to use the free-weight area for squats and deadlifts. Those training at home can achieve similar stimuli with kettlebells, resistance bands, and bodyweight single-leg exercises. For riders who primarily train on Yangmingshan, Beiyi, and the Central Cross-Island Highway, it is recommended to concentrate a dedicated strength block during the off-season (typically the hottest part of summer, when long outdoor sessions are impractical), turning the hot season into a golden window for building a strength base. When autumn and winter bring cooler weather, riders can return outdoors to convert that strength into actual riding performance. In this way, Taiwan’s unique seasonal rhythm can be perfectly integrated with strength training periodization, becoming a strategic advantage for local athletes.

Debunking Common Myths

Regarding research on the relationship between countermovement jump CMJ and anaerobic cycling power, many claims circulating among enthusiasts contradict the academic evidence. The following clarifies each one.

Myth 1: “Lifting weights will make you bulky and heavier, dragging down endurance.” Evidence shows that maximal-strength-oriented training (high intensity, low volume) primarily produces neural and tendon adaptations, with limited increases in muscle cross-sectional area. In most studies, body weight shows no significant change, while performance improves due to enhanced efficiency.

Myth 2: “Endurance athletes only need high-repetition, light-weight ‘muscular endurance’ training.” The opposite is actually true. High-repetition, light-weight training provides insufficient stimulus for neural drive and tendon stiffness, and numerous studies indicate that heavy-load, low-repetition training yields superior transfer effects.

Myth 3: “Strength training effects will show up in performance immediately.” Although neural adaptations occur quickly, tendon remodeling and muscle fiber transformation require weeks to months. Giving up too early is a common mistake.

Myth 4: “The interference effect of concurrent training will cancel out the benefits of strength training.” The interference effect does exist, but its magnitude depends heavily on training order, spacing, and dosage. With proper planning, strength and endurance can absolutely coexist and reinforce each other. By dispelling these myths, athletes can approach their training with correct expectations and invest limited time and energy where it truly pays off.

Conclusion

Looking at the evidence reviewed in this article, the question of the relationship between countermovement jump CMJ and anaerobic cycling power is no longer about “whether to do it,” but rather “how to do it smarter.” From immediate neuromuscular adaptations, to long-term remodeling of muscle fibers and tendons, to comprehensive improvements in movement economy, multiple layers of mechanisms jointly support one conclusion: appropriate resistance training is an indispensable component of the endurance athlete’s toolkit.

Future research directions include predicting individual responses using genetic and molecular markers, clarifying the optimal molecular-level interval for concurrent training, and developing new resistance training equipment with greater sport specificity. For cyclists and runners in Taiwan, the most practical recommendation is: build a solid maximal strength foundation in the off-season, maintain it with the minimum effective dose during the season, and monitor progress with objective metrics throughout—so that strength truly translates into speed and endurance on race day. Science has already pointed the way; what remains is putting it into practice with every squat down and stand up.

Related Reading

• Application of Isokinetic Strength Testing in Power Prediction for Cyclists: A Biomechanical Study
• Pedaling Force Vector Analysis in Cycling: Most Effective Pedaling Angles and Muscle Coordination
• Effects of Strength Asymmetry on Cycling Pedaling Efficiency: A 3D Motion Analysis Study
• Correlation Between Squat Maximal Strength and Cycling Power Output: A Meta-Analysis Study