From Souplesse to Strength: A New Model for Cycling Performance

For decades, cycling has elevated the concept of souplesse; a smooth, efficient pedal stroke that prioritizes grace, cadence, and energy conservation. This aesthetic of effortlessness became synonymous with elite performance, reinforced by equipment innovation and aerodynamic refinement. Today, cyclists continue to invest heavily in marginal aerodynamic gains and weight reduction strategies in pursuit of faster speeds.

Yet while this model has delivered undeniable progress, its limitations are becoming increasingly evident. The next leap forward in cycling performance may not come from reducing resistance further, but from learning to generate and express more power.

A useful parallel exists in competitive swimming. Until the early 2000s, swimmers were trained to maintain technique such as high-elbow recovery, designed to minimize frontal drag and preserve efficiency. The approach mirrored cycling’s relationship with souplesse, which favors low-torque mechanics and graceful technique. However, the arrival of swimmers like Michael Phelps marked a shift. A "post-Phelps" era now exists where stroke mechanics have evolved towards power-centric movement, such as a straight-arm power freestyle recovery. Shorter, more forceful strokes replaced the extended, gliding style of the past.

This transformation was not aesthetic. It was functional. Power became the primary driver of speed. Biomechanical research supported the change. Higher stroke rates and greater force per cycle led directly to faster swim times. Training shifted toward high-intensity, race-specific efforts that improved neuromuscular coordination and increased force production. The sport’s performance ceiling rose significantly as a result.

Cycling has yet to undergo a similar evolution. Despite advances in bike technology and physiological understanding, most cyclists remain anchored to a training model centered on resisting drag. Weight loss strategies continue to dominate. Aerodynamic positioning is emphasized, often at the expense of power production. In effect, many cyclists are working to become more efficient at producing less.

Cycling Esports presents an alternative. On virtual platforms like Zwift, athletes are exposed to consistent, measurable resistance through smart trainers. These sessions introduce controlled eccentric loading and require precise force application. Unlike traditional road riding, the athlete cannot rely on terrain, group dynamics, or drafting strategy alone. Instead, the focus shifts to strength expression and timing under pressure.

Studies have shown that repeated high-intensity efforts on smart trainers lead to improvements in neuromuscular efficiency and peak power output, without causing significant hypertrophy. This is critical for endurance athletes. The objective is not increased muscle mass but better utilization of existing muscle through improved recruitment and coordination.

The misconception that strength gains necessarily lead to unwanted size continues to discourage cyclists from embracing power development. However, evidence indicates that strength, when built through targeted, sport-specific training, enhances endurance performance without compromising an athlete’s physiology.

This is where cycling can take a lesson from swimming. Technique remains essential, as does efficiency. But both must be paired with the ability to apply force. Power generation is not in conflict with grace—it is the natural evolution of it.

Emerging from the intersection of sports science and technology, cycling esports on Zwift presents a compelling pathway toward unlocking cyclists' inherent strength.

Research has demonstrated that high-intensity, esports-style efforts significantly enhance neuromuscular efficiency and maximum power outputs without causing substantial muscle hypertrophy. Additionally, the eccentric loading provided by smart trainers, described as "back-force," directly improves cyclists' strength by optimizing existing muscular capacity.

Cycling does not need to abandon souplesse. It needs to build on it. The future belongs to riders who can combine efficiency with strength, fluidity with force, and strategy with speed.

The next step in performance is not lighter. It is stronger.

Reference Summary and Supporting Research

[1] Jeukendrup & Martin (2001). "Improving cycling performance: how should we spend our time and money?" Sports Medicine, 31(7), 559–569. This study analyzes how time and financial investment should be allocated in cycling performance. It frames souplesse as a legacy technique that prioritizes cadence and efficiency, suggesting diminishing returns from excessive focus on mechanical economy in isolation.

[2] Toussaint & Beek (1992). "Biomechanics of competitive front crawl swimming." Sports Medicine, 13(1), 8–24. A foundational paper in swim biomechanics that outlines how minimizing resistance through movement patterns—like high-elbow recovery—was historically considered ideal for competitive swimming. It reinforces how efficiency-first thinking shaped an entire generation of athletes.

[3] Seifert et al. (2010). "Swimming constraints and arm coordination." Human Movement Science, 29(1), 103–116. This research shows that power per stroke, not glide distance or stroke length, more directly correlates with swim speed. It confirms that modern swimming success is driven by effective force application through shorter, more explosive stroke mechanics.

[4] Aspenes & Karlsen (2012). "Exercise-training intervention studies in competitive swimming." Sports Medicine, 42(6), 527–543. A review of intervention studies showing that high-intensity, power-based swim training leads to improved neuromuscular coordination, enhanced force output, and better race-day performance outcomes. This work strongly supports the transition toward power-centric swim training.

[5] Debraux et al. (2011). "Aerodynamic drag in cycling: methods of assessment." Sports Biomechanics, 10(3), 197–218. A detailed review of aerodynamic strategies in cycling, examining how equipment, clothing, and body position influence drag. While valuable, it highlights how optimization in this area has led to diminishing returns, reinforcing the case for diversifying performance development strategies.

[6] Mujika & Padilla (2001). "Physiological and performance characteristics of male professional road cyclists." Sports Medicine, 31(7), 479–487. This study assesses the physiological profiles of elite cyclists and warns against excessive focus on weight reduction. It suggests that aggressive leanness may compromise muscular function and limit power development, which is essential for high-intensity performance.

[7] Rønnestad & Hansen (2018). "Strength training improves performance and pedaling characteristics in elite cyclists." Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 28(1), 371–383. A controlled intervention study showing that strength-focused training improves peak power and pedaling mechanics in elite cyclists, without increasing muscle mass. It presents a strong case for integrating strength work into endurance programming, particularly in esports settings.

[8] Leong, C. H. et al. (2014). "Chronic Eccentric Cycling Improves Quadriceps Muscle Structure and Maximum Cycling Power" International Journal of Sports Medicine 2014 Jun;35(7):559-65. The study suggests that eccentric cycling is a time-efficient method for endurance athletes to enhance muscle power.

[9] Rønnestad & Mujika (2014). "Optimizing strength training for running and cycling endurance performance: A review." Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 24(4), 603–612. A comprehensive review of strength training applications in cycling and running. The findings support the idea that strength work improves short-duration, high-intensity performance and should be seen as complementary—not contradictory—to endurance training.

[10] Coffey & Hawley (2017). "Concurrent exercise training: Do opposites distract?" The Journal of Physiology, 595(9), 2883–2896. This physiology review clarifies that endurance athletes, due to their high training volumes and energy demands, are unlikely to experience significant hypertrophy even with added strength work. The study dispels the myth that strength training necessarily leads to increased bulk.