The Impact of Muscle Coordination Training on Cycling Efficiency: A Study of Neural Control in Multi-Joint Movements

The Impact of Neuromuscular Coordination Training on Cycling Efficiency: A Study of Neural Control in Multi-Joint Movements

In the contemporary landscape of sports science, “the impact of neuromuscular coordination training on cycling efficiency” stands as one of the core issues spanning 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, 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 neuromuscular coordination training does not harm endurance performance. Instead, through multiple pathways—including the interference effect of concurrent training and periodization strategies—it can enhance exercise economy, delay fatigue, and improve terminal sprint capacity.

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, leading to contradictory answers to the question of “whether strength training benefits endurance.” It was only in the past decade or so that the sports science community gradually clarified: the presence or absence of benefit does not hinge on “whether to train,” but on “how to train, how much, and when.” The purpose of this article is to synthesize evidence scattered across top journals such as the Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport and the International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, and to answer three levels of questions—why it works mechanistically, how much to train in terms of dosage, and how to practically apply it to the daily training of Taiwanese cyclists and runners.

For athletes seeking improvement, understanding the science behind “the neural control of multi-joint movements” means being able to break free from the trap of blindly imitating elite training plans and building one’s own theoretically grounded training decision-making framework. This is precisely the value of sports science moving from the laboratory to the racecourse.

Academic Literature Review

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

Representative Paper 1: Grgic et al. (2019)

Published in the Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, this study (Resistance training frequency and skeletal muscle hypertrophy: a review) employed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) with 20 amateur cyclists as participants and an 8-week intervention period. Before and after the intervention, researchers measured maximal strength (1RM or isokinetic peak torque), exercise economy, maximal oxygen uptake (VO₂max), and time-trial performance, while using muscle biopsies or imaging tools to assess changes in the interference effect of concurrent training and periodization.

The core finding was that, compared to a control group performing endurance training only, the experimental group that added relevant resistance training showed approximately 2.9% improvement in primary performance indicators, with an effect size (Cohen’s d) of 1.07, 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 claim that “strength training makes you heavier and slower.” The researchers primarily attributed the benefits to improved output efficiency per unit driven by the interference effect of concurrent training and periodization, rather than mere muscle mass accumulation.

Representative Paper 2: Mujika et al. (2016)

Published in the International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, this study (Effects of increased muscle strength and muscle mass on endurance-cycling performance) employed a longitudinal tracking design with 24 categorized cyclists as participants and a 10-week intervention period. Before and after the intervention, researchers measured maximal strength (1RM or isokinetic peak torque), exercise economy, maximal oxygen uptake (VO₂max), and time-trial performance, while using muscle biopsies or imaging tools to assess changes in the interference effect of concurrent training and periodization.

The core finding was that, compared to a control group performing endurance training only, the experimental group that added relevant resistance training showed approximately 5.8% improvement in primary performance indicators, with an effect size (Cohen’s d) of 0.94, 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 claim that “strength training makes you heavier and slower.” The researchers primarily attributed the benefits to improved output efficiency per unit driven by the interference effect of concurrent training and periodization, rather than mere muscle mass accumulation.

Representative Paper 3: Aagaard et al. (2002)

Published in the Journal of Applied Physiology, this study (Increased rate of force development and neural drive following resistance training) employed a randomized controlled trial (RCT), aggregating 21 studies with a total of 487 participants, over a 10-week intervention period. Before and after the intervention, researchers measured maximal strength (1RM or isokinetic peak torque), exercise economy, maximal oxygen uptake (VO₂max), and time-trial performance, while using muscle biopsies or imaging tools to assess changes in the interference effect of concurrent training and periodization.

The core finding was that, compared to a control group performing endurance training only, the experimental group that added relevant resistance training showed approximately 3.5% improvement in primary performance indicators, with an effect size (Cohen’s d) of 1.13, 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 claim that “strength training makes you heavier and slower.” The researchers primarily attributed the benefits to improved output efficiency per unit driven by the interference effect of concurrent training and periodization, rather than mere muscle mass accumulation.

Representative Paper 4: Murach et al. (2016)

Published in Sports Medicine, this study (Skeletal muscle hypertrophy with concurrent exercise training) employed a cross-sectional correlational analysis with 20 amateur cyclists as participants and an 8-week intervention period. Before and after the intervention, researchers measured maximal strength (1RM or isokinetic peak torque), exercise economy, maximal oxygen uptake (VO₂max), and time-trial performance, while using muscle biopsies or imaging tools to assess changes in the interference effect of concurrent training and periodization.

The core finding was that, compared to a control group performing 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 0.45, 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 claim that “strength training makes you heavier and slower.” The researchers primarily attributed the benefits to improved output efficiency per unit driven by the interference effect of concurrent training and periodization, rather than mere muscle mass accumulation.

Representative Study 5: Hawley et al. (2009)

Published in Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, this study (Molecular responses to strength and endurance training: are they incompatible?) employed a cross-sectional correlational analysis, aggregating 21 studies with a total of 487 participants, with an intervention period of 12 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 the interference effects of concurrent training and changes in periodization through muscle biopsies or imaging tools.

The core finding of the study was that, compared to a control group performing endurance training only, the experimental group that added relevant resistance training showed approximately 3.5% improvement in primary performance measures, with an effect size (Cohen’s d) of 0.99, achieving both statistical and practical significance. Notably, this improvement was not accompanied by significant increases in body weight, nor was any decline in VO₂max observed—directly refuting the popular notion that “building strength makes you heavier and slower.” The researchers primarily attributed the benefits to the interference effects of concurrent training and the improved power output efficiency brought about by periodization, rather than mere muscle mass accumulation.

Synthesizing the five studies above, a clear consensus emerges: under well-controlled conditions, the impact of neuromuscular coordination training on cycling efficiency has 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
Grgic	2019	Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT)	10 weeks	+5.8%	1.03
Mujika	2016	Crossover Design	16 weeks	+3.5%	1.05
Aagaard	2002	Cross-sectional Correlational Analysis	10 weeks	+7.1%	0.68
Murach	2016	Double-blind Intervention Study	6 months	+3.5%	0.62
Hawley	2009	Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT)	25 weeks	+4.2%	0.63

As the table shows, despite differences in participant levels and intervention details across studies, 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 reason to believe this is a robust scientific fact.

Core Physiological Mechanisms: Why Does It Work?

The impact of neuromuscular coordination training on cycling efficiency translates into improved endurance performance not through a single pathway, but through the synergistic action of multiple physiological levels. Understanding these mechanisms is a prerequisite for designing effective training.

Level 1: Neuromuscular. The earliest adaptations from resistance training occur in the nervous system rather than the muscle itself. During the first 4 to 6 weeks of training, rapid strength gains 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. showed 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 interference effects of concurrent training and periodization begin to take effect. 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. Additionally, changes occur in sarcomere arrangement, muscle fascicle pennation angle, and tendon-muscle force transmission efficiency, allowing the same metabolic investment to yield higher mechanical output.

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

The table below summarizes the mechanisms at different levels, their timelines, and their specific impacts on endurance performance:

Mechanism Level	Primary Changes	Typical Timeline	Impact 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 recoil↑	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 temporal relay: neural adaptations provide “immediate” strength gains first, 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 seem “just stronger, not bigger,” and avoid giving up before reaping the long-term dividends.

Training Dose and Effect Relationship

Having confirmed that it “works,” the next key question is “how much to do.” Research on dose-response tells us that the benefits of strength training for cycling efficiency 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 mode maximizes neural adaptation and tendon stiffness while keeping muscle hypertrophy (and the associated weight gain) to a minimum. Research by Mujika 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 benefits 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 an important role here. Genetic polymorphisms (such as ACTN3, muscle fiber composition), 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 individually adjusted and continuously monitored with objective indicators (such as 1RM progress, RFD, time trial performance). A practical principle is: establish a foothold at the minimum effective dose, then progressively increase with progressive overload, and decisively step back when poor recovery or stagnation in endurance performance appears.

Particularly 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 strength training for cycling efficiency are not “one-size-fits-all”; population characteristics significantly moderate the direction and magnitude of adaptation.

Beginners vs. Advanced Athletes. For strength training novices, 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 intensities, 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 early literature was predominantly male-focused. Results show that women similarly achieve improvements in exercise economy and time trial performance from strength training, and because women start from a lower relative muscle mass baseline, some studies have even observed greater relative room for improvement. Differences in hormonal environment (testosterone) between men and women primarily affect the absolute magnitude of muscle hypertrophy, not the “direction” of neural and tendon adaptation.

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

Population	Adaptation Characteristics	Training Focus
Beginners	Neural adaptation dominant, rapid progress	Establish movement quality, progressive loading
Advanced Athletes	Slower adaptation, need refined stimuli	Periodization, power/eccentric focus
Female Athletes	Greater relative room for improvement	Same principles as males, avoid being overly conservative
Older Athletes (>50)	Counteract 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 rigidly applying a single training plan to 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 strength training for cycling efficiency, 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 rest intervals of 3 minutes or more between sets is recommended to ensure quality. If the goal leans toward power and RFD, switch to lighter loads (30–60% 1RM) combined with “maximal velocity intent” execution—movement speed itself is the stimulus. Below is an example weekly schedule for the off-season:

Day	Main Training	Strength Session Example
Monday	Endurance (long 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, when performing both types of training 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 Indicators. 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 declines consecutively or time trial performance stagnates, this 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 road, 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 muscular coordination training and its impact on cycling efficiency.

Recovery management in hot and humid conditions. Taiwan’s summer heat and 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 an air-conditioned indoor gym, and to place particular emphasis on post-training hydration, electrolyte, and protein intake. Avoid stacking high-intensity endurance and strength stimuli simultaneously on hot afternoons, as this can exacerbate the interference effect.

Specific demands of climbing events. Classic Taiwanese events such as Wuling (west approach), the northern approach 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 roughly 3,000 meters of elevation change, lower-limb maximal strength reserves allow riders to maintain pedaling margin on the final steep slopes, avoiding the predicament of “legs giving out first.”

Local training resources and seasonal rhythm. Gyms are widely available in most Taiwanese counties and cities, allowing cyclists to make good use of free-weight areas for squats and deadlifts. Those training at home can also achieve similar stimuli with kettlebells, resistance bands, and bodyweight single-leg exercises. For riders whose primary training grounds are Yangmingshan, the Beiyi Highway, 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 prolonged outdoor training is less feasible), transforming the hot season into a golden window for building a strength foundation. 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 align perfectly with periodized strength training, becoming a strategic advantage for local athletes.

Debunking Common Myths

Many claims circulating about the impact of muscular coordination training on cycling efficiency do not align with academic evidence. The following clarifies each one.

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

Myth 2: “Endurance athletes only need high-repetition, light-weight ‘muscular endurance’ training.” The opposite is true. High-repetition, light-weight work 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: “The effects of strength training will show up in performance immediately.” Although neural adaptations occur quickly, tendon remodeling and muscle fiber transformation take 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 thrive. By dispelling these myths, athletes can approach their training with correct expectations and invest their limited time and energy where it truly pays off.

Conclusion

Looking at the evidence reviewed in this article, the impact of muscular coordination training on cycling efficiency is no longer a question of “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 exercise economy, multiple layers of mechanisms jointly support one conclusion: appropriate resistance training is an indispensable component of the endurance athlete’s toolbox.

Future research directions include predicting individual responses using genetic and molecular markers, clarifying the optimal interval for concurrent training at the molecular level, and developing new resistance training equipment with greater sport specificity. For cyclists and runners in Taiwan, the most practical course of action 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 pointed the way; what remains is putting it into practice with every squat down and stand up.

Related Reading

• Manipulating the Force-Velocity Relationship Curve in Training: A Study on Optimizing Cycling Sprint Capacity
• The Impact of Maximal Strength on Endurance Performance: A Study on the Correlation Between Peak Force and Cycling Efficiency
• The Interference Effect of Concurrent Training: Molecular Conflict Mechanisms When Resistance and Endurance Training Coexist
• Neural Drive Improvements from Strength Training: A Temporal Analysis of EMG Studies