Abstract
round:Cycling performance declines with age due to reduced aerobic capacity, along with reductions in muscle mass and bone density. Strength training can help counter these effects. This study aims to explore the strength training practices, challenges, and decision-making rationale of male master cyclists to optimize performance and health as they age.Methods:A total of 555 male master cyclists aged 35 and above completed an online questionnaire, distributed via social media platforms, that included Likert-type, single- and multiple-selection, and open- ended questions. Participants were then divided into two age groups: 35–49 years (n = 359) and ≥50 years (n = 196). Analyses involved descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, Mann– Whitney U-tests, and chi-square tests, with qualitative data analyzed using content analysis.Results: More cyclists engaged in strength training during the off-/pre-season, with a significant reduction in both frequency and the number of cyclists engaging in strength training during the race season. The strength training practice was focused mainly on core and lower body, employing hypertrophy and maximal strength training methods. Key challenges included fatigue induced by strength training and limited time to perform strength training. The main rationale for the strength training revolved around improving cycling performance, reducing injury risk, and the health benefits of strength training. Both age categories, but the older group in particular, reported bone health as a primary rationale for strength training.Conclusions:While strength training offers performance and health benefits, issues of fatigue and time constraints remain substantial, suggesting the need
training. The main rationale for the strength training revolved around improving cycling performance, reducing injury risk, and the health benefits of strength training. Both age categories, but the older group in particular, reported bone health as a primary rationale for strength training.Conclusions:While strength training offers performance and health benefits, issues of fatigue and time constraints remain substantial, suggesting the need for tailored training programs to improve adherence and effectiveness. Keywords:master cyclists; strength training; endurance performance 1. Introduction Cycling is a demanding endurance sport that covers disciplines such as road cycling, mountain biking, and gravel cycling. These disciplines are popular among middle-aged athletes, commonly referred to as master athletes. A master’s athlete is typically defined as someone who is over the age of 35 and participates in competitive sports or physical activities [1]. Endurance performance generally declines gradually from age 35, with a more rapid decrease occurring after 50–60 years of age [2]. Aging in endurance cyclists is often associated with reduced maximal oxygen consumption ( · VO2 max), peak power output, and maximal heart rate, with the decrease in · VO2 max—primarily due to reductions in maximal heart rate and stroke volume—being a major factor in this decline [2–4]. Despite a decrease in aerobic capacity, both first and second ventilatory threshold as a percentage of · VO2 max have been observed to increase with age [3]. In addition to the decline in aerobic capacity, muscle mass also decreases with age (sarcopenia), with the decrease being biggest in fast twitch fibers [5,6]. Despite the effects of aging, it is suggested that exercise can counteract these effects and help preserve physical function and muscle strength [6]. However, the decline in muscle mass and strength commonly associated with aging may J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol.2024,9, 232.
J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol.2024,9, 232 2 of 13 partially be due to disuse rather than aging itself, as evidenced by high-level recreational athletes who maintain muscle mass and strength with regular exercise [6,7]. Research suggests that conducting two weekly sessions of heavy strength training can enhance endurance and cycling performance [8–10]. These performance gains are often linked to improvements in exercise economy, likely resulting from adaptations in the strength-trained muscles [11]. However, these adaptations seem to diminish if cyclists discontinue strength training for over eight weeks, although they can be sustained with just one session per week [12,13]. These potential benefits from strength training seem to be equal or even bigger for older athletes [14]. In addition to heavy strength training, core stability training is another popular training method, and although it is widely prac- ticed, its effectiveness in enhancing performance remains uncertain. It is hypothesized that it could aid injury prevention [15]; however, some researchers argue that traditional strength exercises may be sufficient to achieve core stability adaptations [16]. A study by Sitko et al. [17] found no improvement in power output for durations ranging from 5 s to 20 min in trained cyclists after a 12-week core training program. Among cyclists, lower back pain and knee pain are the most frequent overuse injuries [18]. Research by Abt et al. [19] indicated that induced core fatigue in competitive cyclists could alter cy- cling mechanics, potentially increasing the risk of injury by subjecting the knee joint to greater stress. While several studies have explored the endurance training of professional and elite cyclists, we only found one study that has briefly investigated the strength training practices among cyclists [20–22]. In a study involving 97 cyclists, 62% reported regularly engaging in strength training, primarily targeting lower body and core exercises [23]. However, the study did not explore strength training in depth, as it was a secondary focus. A study [24] investigated the strength training practices of long-distance triathletes, reporting that 54.6% of the athletes engaged in strength training. Although comprehensive, this study focused on triathletes rather than cyclists, making its findings less
training, primarily targeting lower body and core exercises [23]. However, the study did not explore strength training in depth, as it was a secondary focus. A study [24] investigated the strength training practices of long-distance triathletes, reporting that 54.6% of the athletes engaged in strength training. Although comprehensive, this study focused on triathletes rather than cyclists, making its findings less directly applicable to the cycling population. Neither of these studies explored the variations in training practice across different periods of the season. Although strength training has the potential to enhance endurance performance, incorporating it alongside endurance training can present challenges. Time restrictions and lack of knowledge on how to perform the strength exercises were explained as the primary obstacle for triathletes not engaging in strength training [24]. Similarly, Hoon et al. [23] found that time constraints were the main barrier for cyclists who did not engage in strength training. There can also be some potential challenges when cyclists do perform strength training. If there is not sufficient recovery time between sessions, strength training can have a short-term negative impact on endurance performance [25]. This is believed to result from factors such as neuromuscular fatigue, muscle soreness, and depletion of muscle glycogen [26]. The degree to which endurance performance is affected by strength training may vary depending on the athlete’s prior experience with strength training [27]. To reduce the likelihood of this interference, it is recommended to separate strength and endurance sessions by at least 6 h. However, research has shown that even 24–72 h after the session, strength training can still impair endurance performance [26,28]. Additionally, concurrent endurance and strength training may also interfere with the development of power, strength, and hypertrophy [29]. Despite these potential challenges, strength training is crucial for addressing bone health concerns in master cyclists. Several studies highlight that these athletes tend to have lower bone mineral density than untrained peers of the same age and weight [30–32]. Master cyclists not only have lower bone density but also experience a more rapid decline in bone density compared to nonathletes [30]. This issue is further emphasized by
crucial for addressing bone health concerns in master cyclists. Several studies highlight that these athletes tend to have lower bone mineral density than untrained peers of the same age and weight [30–32]. Master cyclists not only have lower bone density but also experience a more rapid decline in bone density compared to nonathletes [30]. This issue is further emphasized by Nichols et al. [31], who found that highly trained master cyclists have lower bone mineral density than age-matched nonathletes. Unlike weight-bearing activities such as running, cycling provides minimal benefits to bone health [33,34]. A study by Rector et al. [35] reported that male cyclists had significantly lower bone density and a higher prevalence of osteopenia,
J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol.2024,9, 232 3 of 13 with 60% of cyclists affected and a sevenfold greater risk than runners. Strength training, however, has been shown to improve bone density in areas like the lumbar spine and hip in competitive male cyclists [36]. All these factors highlight the potential benefits of strength training for master cyclists to maximize performance and preserve muscle and bone health as they age. Given that age-related declines in aerobic capacity, muscle mass, and bone density are often more pro- nounced after the age 50, this study compares cyclists aged 35–49 with those over 50 years to capture any differences in strength training practices, challenges, and rationales that may arise as physical changes accelerate [2,5]. Although prior studies have provided insights into strength training practices among endurance athletes, limited research specifically addresses how master cyclists incorporate and sustain strength training, the challenges they encounter, and the rationale behind their choices. This study aims to fill these gaps by exploring three research questions: (1) What are the strength training practices of male master cyclists? (2) What challenges related to strength training do they experience? (3) What is the rationale behind their decision making related to strength training? 2. Method 2.1. Participants The sample of male master cyclists included a diverse group of experience levels, ranging from recreational riders to competitive master cyclists; therefore, the sample en- compassed diverse experience levels, which allows for a broader understanding of strength training practices. A total of 555 male master cyclists responded to the questionnaire and they were divided into two age categories: 35–49 years for the younger master cyclists (35–49) and≥50 years for the older master cyclists (≥50). The 35–49 group, consisting of 359 participants, had an average age of 41.8±4.2 years and participated in an average of 8.9±9.7 races annually. The≥50 group, counting 196 participants, had an average age of 56.9±5.5 years and competed on average 8.7±8.4 races per year. The study was reviewed and approved by Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research (SIKT), with reference number 322042. 2.2. Questionnaire Data for this study were collected
41.8±4.2 years and participated in an average of 8.9±9.7 races annually. The≥50 group, counting 196 participants, had an average age of 56.9±5.5 years and competed on average 8.7±8.4 races per year. The study was reviewed and approved by Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research (SIKT), with reference number 322042. 2.2. Questionnaire Data for this study were collected through a questionnaire designed to explore the training practices, challenges, and rationale for the strength training of male master cy- clists. The questionnaire mainly gathered quantitative data, but also included open-ended questions to gather in-depth qualitative responses from participants. The recruitment process involved distributing the questionnaire over the social media platforms Twitter/X, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube, with the help of individuals already established within the cycling community, such as sport scientists, cycling coaches, cycling influencers, and others who helped share the survey to their cycling audience. The questionnaire received responses from cyclists of all levels, sexes, and age categories. However, the participants of this study were limited to male master cyclists aged 35 and above. Cyclists over 35 years who reported riding for elite or professional teams were therefore excluded. The questionnaire consisted of 24 questions and was designed by the authors to efficiently gather information on the practices, challenges, and reasoning behind cyclists’ choices regarding strength training. The questionnaire was newly constructed to capture the strength training practices, challenges, and rationales of master cyclists. It underwent pilot testing on a group of male recreational master cyclists, allowing us to refine question clarity and identify any potential biases. The full overview of the questions from the questionnaire is included in the Supplementary Materials for reference. The start of the questionnaire collected basic demographic information, such as age, sex, and the racing category they participated in (master, elite, professional, etc.). Par- ticipants were asked to report the number of race days they had in the previous season and to indicate the duration of effort they felt strongest in, providing insight into their racing demands and strengths. Moreover, the participants were then asked about their
racing category they participated in (master, elite, professional, etc.). Par- ticipants were asked to report the number of race days they had in the previous season and to indicate the duration of effort they felt strongest in, providing insight into their racing demands and strengths. Moreover, the participants were then asked about their
J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol.2024,9, 232 4 of 13 weekly strength training frequency for the off-season, pre-season, and race season periods, choosing from nine preset options ranging from 0 to 7 sessions per week. Responses of “less than one session per week” (not zero) were counted as 0.5 sessions for the purpose of calculating average sessions per week in the analysis. Five of the questions used a 9-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from 1 (“Not content at all”), 5 (“Neutral”), to 9 (“Very content”) for satisfaction-related questions, and from 1 (“I strongly dislike”), 5 (“Neutral”), to 9 (“I very much like”) for enjoyment-related questions. These questions regarded the following topics: contentment with their received coaching for both endurance (1) and strength training (2), enjoyment of endurance (3) and strength (4) training, and a question asking how confident the cyclists were that strength training could improve their cycling performance (5). The cyclists were also asked whether they have experienced improvements in cycling performance as a result of strength training, where they were presented with the alternatives “yes”, “no”, and “not sure”. Additionally, there were six single-selection and multiple-selection questions with preset alternatives. Participants were asked about various aspects, such as strength training methods (1), muscle groups they regularly trained (2), reasons for performing strength training (3), challenges related to strength training (4), and their beliefs regarding the positive (5) and negative effects of strength training (6). Questions were designed to be neutral to minimize bias and enhance the reliability of responses. An example of a neutral question used in the questionnaire is: “What are your primary rationale for performing strength training?”. This has multiple-selection options such as “improving cycling performance”, “reducing injury risk”, and “enhancing overall health”. This question was crafted to allow participants to select options without leading them toward any specific rationale. 2.3. Data Analysis 2.3.1. Quantitative Analysis A quantitative analysis was carried out using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 28). For the multiple- and single-selection questions, the results were presented as the percentage of the cyclists of each age group selecting each option. Statistical analysis involved applying the Chi-square
to allow participants to select options without leading them toward any specific rationale. 2.3. Data Analysis 2.3.1. Quantitative Analysis A quantitative analysis was carried out using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 28). For the multiple- and single-selection questions, the results were presented as the percentage of the cyclists of each age group selecting each option. Statistical analysis involved applying the Chi-square test, with results displayed in tables that included chi-square (χ 2) values and correspondingp-values, allowing for a thorough examination of associations within various categorical variables. For the scale-based questions, due to the non-normal distribution of the data, the Mann–Whitney U-test was used to compare responses between the two age groups, with z-scores andp-values provided. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was also employed to evaluate whether changes in the number of sessions per week across three periods were statistically significant, presenting z-scores andp-values for clarity. Participants who did not engage in strength training were excluded from the average sessions per week calculation. The McNemar test with Bonferroni correction was used to assess differences in categorical data to evaluate within group differences. 2.3.2. Qualitative Analysis In addition to the quantitative data, the open-ended question where the cyclists could add their additional comments gathered text responses from 120 of the participants, totaling approximately 4000 words. The qualitative data from the questionnaire were analyzed using a deductive content analysis [37], as presented in Table, which offers an overview of the key content of the text data from the questionnaire. The analysis began by filtering out responses not relevant to the research questions. Codes were then developed for each research question based on the themes identified from the quantitative questionnaire results. The text data underwent multiple readings by the main author to ensure accurate coding, with the entire content analysis process being guided by advice from an external expert in qualitative research. Table the associated codes within each of the research questions, and the essence encapsulated by each code. For instance, the code “Execution of Strength Training” delves into the specifics of how strength training routines were performed, encompassing details such as exercise
the entire content analysis process being guided by advice from an external expert in qualitative research. Table the associated codes within each of the research questions, and the essence encapsulated by each code. For instance, the code “Execution of Strength Training” delves into the specifics of how strength training routines were performed, encompassing details such as exercise
J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol.2024,9, 232 5 of 13 selection and execution. This data provide insights into participants’ strength training practices and shed light on their strength training-related challenges and the rationale behind their training choices. Table 1.Overview of content analysis. Research Question Codes Essence of Codes Number of Responses Strength training practice Maximal strength training Engage in maximal strength training. 5 Hypertrophy/muscle growth Focus on hypertrophy to increase muscle size. 3 Core training Focus on core training for stability and cycling performance. 8 Execution of strength training session/exercises Details on how exercises and strength training sessions are performed. 7 Challenges related to strength training Fatigue Fatigue from strength training negatively affect cycling training and performance. 6 Time restrictions Time constraints hinder consistent strength training. 9 Enjoyment/motivation Struggle with motivation for strength training. 4 Rationale for Strength Training Choices Cycling performance Engage in strength training to improve cycling performance. 10 To reduce injury risk Perform strength training to lower injury risk. 7 For overall health Engage in strength training to improve overall health. 5 Bone health Focus on strength training for bone health. 2 To increase muscle mass Increasing muscle mass is a goal for some cyclists. 3 3. Results 3.1. Strength Training Practice The Mann–Whitney U-test revealed no significant difference in strength training sessions per week between the two age categories. More cyclists engaged in strength training (≥1 session per week) during the off-season (35–49: 79.1%;≥50: 82.2%) and pre-season (35–49: 78.9%;≥50: 82.2%) compared with during the race season (35–49: 59.9%;≥50: 61.2%). The strength training frequency was lower during pre-season than off-season, and lower during the race season than both off-season and pre-season (Table). For both age groups, the most frequent duration of effort the cyclists considered themselves to be the strongest were efforts of one hour or longer, with no difference between the groups, (Figure). Table 2.Wilcoxon single rank test comparing the differences in sessions per week between off-season, pre-season, and race season for the two age categories (35–49 vs.≥50). Sessions/Week Off-Season % Pre-Season % Race Season % 35–49 ≥50 35–49 ≥50 35–49 ≥50 0 18.1 14.2 18.3 15.8 30.6
Description
Examines strength training among male master cyclists, focusing on practices, challenges, and health benefits.