55 people aged 68 did 4 weeks of cycling. The results should change how you think.

Listen to this issue as a podcast

Most of the people I coach are not 68 years old. But this study might be more relevant to you than anything published on elite cyclists this month.

Researchers at the University of Lausanne took 55 untrained older adults (average age 68, range 60 to 75) and split them into four groups. Each group did the same thing: moderate-intensity cycling, three times a week, for four weeks. The only difference was the type of cycling.

Group one rode a standard stationary bike. Group two rode in a hypoxic chamber simulating 3,000 metres of altitude. Group three rode with blood flow restriction cuffs on their thighs. Group four rode an eccentric cycle ergometer, where the pedals resist you in reverse.

Four different methods. Four weeks. And the result?

Every group improved the same amount. Average power output went up 9%. Isokinetic leg strength improved between 10% and 20%. Resting heart rate dropped. Blood pressure dropped. No single method beat any other.

Plain cycling was just as effective as altitude training, blood flow restriction, and eccentric loading.

Now, before you dismiss this as irrelevant because these were untrained 68-year-olds and not competitive masters riders, consider the actual lesson here. It is not about the population. It is about what drives adaptation.

The stimulus that mattered was structured, moderate-intensity cycling done consistently. Not the novelty of the method. Not the complexity of the setup. Not the marketing behind the approach. The work itself was enough.

And that principle does not stop applying when you get fitter or younger. In fact, it gets more important, because trained athletes are more likely to chase complexity when what they actually need is better execution of the basics.

One more detail worth noting: rate of force development (explosive power) was the only metric that did not improve in any group. Cycling alone, even eccentric cycling, did not build the ability to produce force quickly. If you need that quality for racing, you need to train it separately.

What to do with this

If you race or do hard group rides: Stop looking for the magic session or the exotic training method. Ask whether you are doing the simple things well. Are your easy rides actually easy? Are your hard rides purposeful? Is your week structured or just busy?

If you are a high-volume rider: More is not always what you need. This study showed meaningful adaptation from just three sessions a week at moderate intensity. If you are riding 12 to 15 hours and not seeing progress, the answer is probably not more hours.

If you are time-capped: This is good news. Structured moderate-intensity cycling, done consistently, produces measurable improvements in power and strength. You do not need elaborate setups or expensive technology to get better. You need a plan and the discipline to follow it.

Citherlet, T., Mota, G.R., Carletta, M., Hayoz, K., Pereira Silva, D., Bringard, A., Perret, C., Faiss, R., Bourdillon, N., & Millet, G.P. (2025). Effectiveness of short-term cycling interventions in older adults: a randomized trial of hypoxic, blood flow restriction, and eccentric cycling. Scientific Reports, 15, 25914. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-10550-9

On my mindVolume or intensity?

I built five training plans this week. Not one of them was about adding more volume.

Every single change was about making the work sharper. More specific. More purposeful intensity in the right places. In one case I cut an endurance ride entirely and replaced it with a shorter, harder session that actually targeted the limiter.

This is the pattern I keep seeing. Riders come to me with enough volume. They have been doing the hours. The base is there. But they are stuck, and the reason they are stuck is that they have not forced themselves to do the hard, specific work that moves the needle from "fit" to "fast."

It is uncomfortable to admit, but a lot of riders avoid intensity. Not because they are lazy. Because easy rides and long rides feel safe. They feel like progress. You finish a four-hour ride and you feel like you did something. And you did. But if you have been doing that for months and your numbers have not shifted, the answer is not another four-hour ride. The answer is probably two hard intervals you have been putting off.

Here is where it gets nuanced, though. This is not a blanket prescription to go harder. The question you need to ask yourself is: what do I actually respond to? Volume or intensity?

Some riders genuinely improve when they add hours. Their body adapts to time in the saddle, to accumulated aerobic stress, to the slow build of muscular endurance over long rides. Others need less volume and more focused intensity to break through. And the answer can change across the season, across the year, even across a training block.

The Northern Hemisphere summer makes this harder, not easier. Days get longer. Group rides pick up. Races appear on the calendar. The temptation is to just ride more because the weather finally allows it. But more volume without more specificity is just more fatigue. What summer actually demands is more targeted work. More race-specific efforts. More intensity applied deliberately on top of the base you have already built.

If you have been putting in the hours and the results have plateaued, do not add another long ride. Look at where the intensity is. Look at whether you are actually doing the sessions that challenge the systems you need for your goals. And if you are not sure whether you respond better to volume or intensity, that is worth figuring out, because the answer changes everything about how your next block should look.

Damian