Elastic bands and bodyweight can build strength like machines and free weights, but maximal strength responds best to heavy loads that home kit struggles to provide for the legs
Interpretation
Lopes et al.'s meta-analysis (7 studies after a 2020 corrigendum, 224 participants aged 15–88, 4–12 weeks) found no difference between elastic and conventional resistance for lower-limb (SMD −0.11) or upper-limb (SMD 0.09) strength, and Calatayud et al. (30 resistance-trained students, 5 weeks) found band push-ups matched the bench press at equal muscle activation. Larger load comparisons point the other way for maximal strength: Lopez et al. (28 studies, 747 adults) found high and moderate loads beat low loads for strength (SMD 0.60–0.63 and 0.34–0.35) though not for hypertrophy, and Currier et al. (178 studies, 5,097 adults, 45% women) ranked >80% 1RM, multiset, thrice-weekly training highest for strength. Rønnestad and Mujika's review and Eihara et al.'s meta-analysis link heavy loading to cycling and running economy. Direction is consistent, but no trial compares home and gym training in endurance athletes, and the elastic trials were small, short and in non-athletes.
Practical implication
Home training done consistently is a valid way for an age-group triathlete to build strength, especially at first; make sets hard and use single-leg exercises. Once home kit no longer challenges the legs, adding heavy lower-body work (gym or home rack) is the likeliest way to keep gaining maximal strength. This is inferred from non-triathlete trials.
Sources
6 sources, independently verified.
Elastic resistance (bands, tubes) produced strength gains similar to conventional resistance (machines, dumbbells): lower limb SMD −0.11 (95% CI −0.40 to 0.19; p = 0.48), upper limb SMD 0.09 (95% CI −0.18 to 0.35; p = 0.52), using the 2020 corrigendum's labels. Limits: few, low-quality studies, short interventions, non-standardised elastic loading, no endurance athletes.
After matching EMG activity, 5 weeks of 6RM bench press or elastic-band push-ups produced similar 1RM strength gains; the non-training control group didn't change. Upper body only, short, small trial. Online 2014; print 2015;29(1):246–253.
Hypertrophy didn't differ between high, moderate and low loads. Strength gains were greater with high-load (SMD 0.60–0.63) and moderate-load (SMD 0.34–0.35) than low-load training; high vs moderate load trended in favour of high load (SMD 0.26–0.28, p = 0.068). Abstract read via University of Jyväskylä repository record.
All resistance training prescriptions beat no exercise for strength and hypertrophy. Highest-ranked for strength: higher load (>80% 1RM), multiple sets, 3 sessions/week (SMD 1.60, 95% credible interval 1.38 to 1.82, vs control). Hypertrophy similar across prescriptions, with multiple sets ranked highest (higher-load multiset twice weekly SMD 0.66).
Adding heavy or explosive strength training improves running economy; heavy strength training is recommended for cycling economy; the most compelling evidence for an additive effect on cycling performance comes from heavy strength training. Proposed mechanisms: delayed recruitment of less efficient type II fibres, improved neuromuscular efficiency, IIX-to-IIA fibre conversion and greater musculo-tendinous stiffness. Online 2013; issue 2014;24(4):603–612.
In long-distance runners, heavy resistance training improved running economy more (g = −0.32, 95% CI −0.55 to −0.10, small) than plyometric training (g = −0.13, 95% CI −0.47 to 0.21, trivial); time-trial effects were g = −0.24 (heavy, small) and g = −0.17 (plyometric, trivial). Loads ≥90% 1RM had larger effects (g = −0.31) than lighter loads (g = −0.17). Abstract has internal inconsistencies in some reported CIs.