· Hugo · Training · 8 min read
How to Get Faster at Cycling
Evidence-based guide to getting faster: polarized and pyramidal training, sleep and recovery, Zone 2 vs volume, fueling that works, and when to focus on aero vs physiology — plus what the research says doesn't transfer.
Getting faster on the bike isn’t about one magic variable — it’s about training structure, recovery, fueling, and knowing where to invest your effort. The research points to a few levers that actually move the needle, and several popular ideas that don’t hold up as well as often claimed.
The short answer: The strongest evidence supports polarized (POL) and pyramidal (PYR) training models for improving VO₂max and aerobic threshold, especially in well-trained athletes. Sleep has a medium to large negative effect on performance when you’re short on it; high-carb fueling (≥100 g/h) is strongly supported for multi-day racing and recovery, but not necessarily for short efforts. For most amateur riders, the specific training-intensity distribution matters less than consistent volume; and the choice between aero vs physiological gains depends on your speed and event — aero dominates at higher speeds (~46 km/h+), while at lower speeds and longer durations, physiology and energy cost matter more.
Below we break down what’s well supported, what’s overhyped, and how to apply it.
Training Structure: What the Evidence Supports
How you distribute intensity across the week has a measurable impact on VO₂max and time-trial performance — but the benefit is largest for already fit athletes.
Polarized (POL) and Pyramidal (PYR): These models are consistently among the most effective for elite and world-class athletes. They emphasise a large share of easy volume plus a smaller amount of very high-intensity work (POL) or a more gradual build from base to intensity (PYR). In elite swimmers, POL and PYR have shown trivial to large effect sizes for speed improvements — including a large effect size (ES = 0.81) for 100 m performance — which adds weight to their use as a proxy for endurance sport more broadly.
High aerobic intensity interval training (HAIT): A case study of an elite cyclist showed that increasing HAIT (90–95% of peak heart rate) by 41% while reducing total volume led to a 10.3% increase in VO₂max and a 14.9% improvement in time-trial performance. So for athletes who can tolerate it, shifting more time into this zone can yield real gains.
Threshold (THR) training: Effective for improving power at the anaerobic threshold, but generally less effective than POL or PYR for broad physiological gains (e.g. VO₂max) in elite populations. It still has a place; it’s just not the single best lever for maximal aerobic development.
The “amateur gap”: For recreational and lower-level riders, the exact training-intensity distribution (POL vs PYR vs THR) often makes a negligible difference. The key lever for these riders is total volume and consistency — not hitting precise intensity targets. So: if you’re already training consistently at a high level, consider POL or PYR; if you’re newer or recreational, focus first on riding enough, then refine structure.
Training models and evidence (elite / well-trained athletes)
| Model | Best for | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Polarized (POL) | VO₂max, aerobic threshold | Large share easy + small share very hard; strong evidence in elites |
| Pyramidal (PYR) | VO₂max, aerobic threshold | Gradual build from base to intensity; strong evidence in elites |
| HAIT (90–95% HRpeak) | VO₂max, TT performance | Case study: +41% HAIT → +10.3% VO₂max, +14.9% TT |
| Threshold (THR) | Power at anaerobic threshold | Useful but generally less effective than POL/PYR for broad aerobic gains |
Sleep and Recovery: How Much It Really Matters
Acute sleep loss has a medium overall negative effect on performance (effect size about -0.56). The impact is largest where it hurts cyclists most:
- High-intensity intermittent exercise: Large negative effect (ES ≈ -1.57).
- Skill and control: Large negative effect (ES ≈ -1.06).
- Speed: Medium negative effect (ES ≈ -0.67).
- Aerobic endurance: Medium negative effect (ES ≈ -0.54).
So cutting sleep before a hard session or race doesn’t just make you tired — it directly undermines the kind of efforts that make you faster. Sleep is strongly supported as critical for skill-based tasks and high-intensity performance. Prioritise it especially before key workouts and events.
Zone 2: When It Helps (and When It’s Overhyped)
Zone 2 (moderate intensity) is often talked about as a “magic” zone. The evidence is more nuanced.
Where Zone 2 is supported: It can support mitochondrial biogenesis and fat oxidation without severely depleting glycogen, which is useful for building aerobic base and fuelling economy on long rides.
Where it’s overhyped: Zone 2’s “magic” status is overhyped for amateurs because they benefit more from simply accumulating volume in any moderate capacity — not from hitting a precise Zone 2 target. For recreational and lower-level athletes, the differences between training models (POL, PYR, THR) are often negligible. So: Zone 2 is a useful part of the mix, but for many riders the exact intensity distribution is less important than riding enough, consistently.
Fueling: What’s Strongly Supported vs Weak
Strongly supported: High-carbohydrate fueling (≥100 g/h) during multi-day racing (e.g. stage races) is critical for glycogen resynthesis and avoiding energy deficits. Getting enough carbs in during and after stages is one of the best-evidenced levers for maintaining performance across a block.
Weakly supported / the downside of over-fueling: In short-term lab studies (e.g. 2–3 hours), ≥100 g/h often shows no performance benefit over the standard 60–90 g/h guidelines. Consuming ≥100 g/h on short or easy rides can actually be counterproductive: it may increase muscle glycogen use, suppress fat oxidation, and cause gastrointestinal distress. The ≥100 g/h guideline is specifically for long, multi-day, or very intense efforts (e.g. a Grand Tour stage). Applying it to every recreational ride is a common overreach.
Aero vs Physiology: Where to Focus
There’s no single answer; it depends on speed and event length.
The physiological cost: Aggressive aerodynamic positions often come with a physiological cost — such as higher energy expenditure or reduced economy — so the fastest-looking pose isn’t always the fastest for you.
Speed dependency: Aerodynamics dominates at speeds above roughly 46 km/h (typical of elite time trials and fast racing). At lower speeds and longer durations, where many amateurs ride, physiological optimisation and energy cost should take priority. Amateur priority: prioritise position comfort and sustainable power over extreme aero gains; invest in aero when you’re actually riding fast enough for it to pay off.
Equipment and bike fit: Changes in bike stack height show small to moderate effect sizes on aerodynamic drag (C_dA), energy cost, and predicted time-trial performance — so fit and equipment do matter, but the gains are incremental and speed-dependent.
What Doesn’t Transfer (and What to Avoid)
Strength training: resilience vs speed: The sources reviewed do not clearly show that traditional resistance/strength training meaningfully transfers to cycling speed — so it’s not a main lever for getting faster. That said, traditional resistance training may still support resilience and injury prevention. The only established “transfer” mentioned was a case where HAIT performed as running improved cycling performance in an elite cyclist, emphasising that sport-specific high-intensity work is the most effective driver of speed.
Weight loss and energy availability: Chasing a higher W/kg through severe energy deficits can backfire by hurting recovery and performance. The sources stress that maintaining adequate energy availability (especially via carbohydrates) is more critical for performance than the weight loss itself. So: support your training with enough fuel; don’t sacrifice recovery and fueling for the scale.
Myths to be wary of: (1) The “carbohydrate revolution” myth — researchers attribute recent professional endurance gains to a combination of fueling, technology, and increased professionalisation, not high-carb intake as the only variable. (2) Zone 2 as a magical threshold — for amateurs, the specific TID model often makes no significant difference; volume and consistency do. (3) Misapplied elite data — the ≥100 g/h guideline is for long, multi-day, or very intense efforts (e.g. a Grand Tour stage); applying it to every recreational ride is a common overreach and can be counterproductive.
Frequently Asked Questions
What training structure makes you faster at cycling?
The strongest evidence supports polarized (POL) and pyramidal (PYR) models for well-trained and elite athletes: lots of easy volume plus a smaller amount of very high-intensity work. High aerobic intensity interval training (HAIT, e.g. 90–95% HRpeak) has also shown large gains in VO₂max and time-trial performance in case studies. For recreational riders, the exact model often matters less than consistent volume.
Does sleep affect cycling performance?
Yes. Acute sleep loss has a medium overall negative effect on performance (ES ≈ -0.56). The impact is large on high-intensity intermittent exercise (ES ≈ -1.57) and skill/control (ES ≈ -1.06), and medium on speed and aerobic endurance. Prioritise sleep before key sessions and races.
Is Zone 2 training overhyped for cyclists?
Zone 2 is supported for mitochondrial biogenesis and fat oxidation. For elite athletes, how you distribute intensity (polarized, pyramidal, threshold) matters. For recreational and lower-level riders, the difference between these models is often negligible — total volume and consistency usually matter more than hitting a precise Zone 2 target.
How much carbohydrate should I consume per hour when cycling?
For long, multi-day, or very intense efforts (e.g. a Grand Tour stage), ≥100 g/h is strongly supported for recovery and avoiding energy deficit. For short or easy rides, ≥100 g/h can be counterproductive (increased glycogen use, suppressed fat oxidation, GI distress); 60–90 g/h is often sufficient. Applying ≥100 g/h to every recreational ride is a common overreach — match intake to ride length and intensity.
Should I focus on aerodynamics or physiology to get faster?
Aerodynamics dominates at higher speeds (e.g. above ~46 km/h). At lower speeds and longer durations — where many amateurs ride — prioritise physiological optimisation, position comfort, and sustainable power over extreme aero gains. Aggressive aero positions often have a physiological cost (higher energy expenditure, reduced economy), so balance both.
Does strength training make you faster at cycling?
Traditional resistance/strength training does not clearly transfer to cycling speed in the evidence reviewed; sport-specific high-intensity work (e.g. HAIT on the bike) is the most effective driver. That said, strength work may still support resilience and injury prevention — it's just not the main lever for speed.
Summary
- Training: Polarized and pyramidal models have the strongest support for VO₂max and aerobic gains in elites (e.g. ES = 0.81 in elite swimmers); HAIT (90–95% HRpeak) can yield large improvements in VO₂max and TT. For recreational and lower-level riders, the exact model (POL vs PYR vs THR) often makes a negligible difference — total volume and consistency are the key levers.
- Sleep: Acute sleep loss has a medium overall (ES ≈ -0.56) to large negative effect on high-intensity (ES ≈ -1.57), skill, speed, and endurance. Prioritise sleep before important sessions and races.
- Zone 2: Supported for mitochondrial biogenesis and fat oxidation; for amateurs, Zone 2’s “magic” is overhyped — accumulating volume in any moderate capacity matters more than hitting a precise Zone 2 target.
- Fueling: ≥100 g/h is strongly supported for multi-day or very intense efforts (e.g. Grand Tour stages); for short or easy rides it can be counterproductive (increased glycogen use, suppressed fat oxidation, GI distress). Applying ≥100 g/h to every recreational ride is a common overreach; use 60–90 g/h for shorter efforts.
- Aero vs physiology: Aggressive aero has a physiological cost (higher energy expenditure, reduced economy). Aero dominates at ~46 km/h+; at lower speeds and longer durations, prioritise position comfort and sustainable power. Bike stack height shows small to moderate ES on C_dA and predicted TT.
- Caveats: Strength training may support resilience and injury prevention but is not a main lever for speed; sport-specific high-intensity work transfers best. Chasing W/kg via severe energy deficits can backfire — adequate energy availability is more critical than weight loss. Researchers attribute pro gains to fueling plus technology and increased professionalisation, not carbs alone.
Focus on structure, recovery, and evidence-based fueling; tune aero and intensity distribution to your level and goals.