Effects of low- vs. high-cadence interval training on cycling performance
18 road cyclists, 4 weeks, 8 sessions of explosive single-leg jumps alternating with high-intensity ergometer sprints at 60-70 or 110-120 rpm: the low-cadence group improved 60-s power, peak power and 4-mM lactate power more than the high-cadence group; the comparison is against a very high cadence, not the rider's own, and both groups also jumped
During the competitive part of the season, high-resistance interval training brings cyclists large gains in sprint and endurance performance; this trial altered only the cadence at which the intervals were ridden. Content from the abstract only.
Participants
n=18 road cyclists, randomised to 2 groups. Sex, age, VO2max and power are not given in the abstract; the conclusion calls them "well-trained competitive cyclists". Tested in the competitive phase of a season.
Protocol
4 weeks, during which 8 sessions of 30 minutes took the place of part of each group's usual training.
Each session: on a training ergometer, sets of high-intensity cycling sprints alternated with sets of explosive single-leg jumps.
Sprint cadence was either low (60-70 min-1) or high (110-120 min-1). Sprint duration, number, resistance and body position (seated or standing) are not given in the abstract.
Testosterone assayed in saliva before and after each session.
Before and after: cycle ergometer tests of performance (incremental peak power, 4-mM lactate power, 60-s time-trial mean power) and of physiology (exercise economy, maximum oxygen uptake, and the fraction of maximum oxygen uptake used).
Key Results
Per session, testosterone concentration rose 97% +/- 39% with low cadence versus only 62% +/- 23% with high cadence (mean +/- between-subject SD).
The low-cadence group gained more performance than the high-cadence group (mean differences, 90% confidence limits):
| Measure | Low minus high cadence |
|---|---|
| 60-second mean power | 2.5% (+/-4.8%) |
| Peak power (incremental) | 3.6% (+/-3.7%) |
| 4-mM lactate power | 7.0% (+/-5.9%) |
| Maximum oxygen uptake | 3.2% (+/-4.2%) |
For the other physiologic indices (economy, fractional utilization) the differences were unclear, as were the correlations linking performance changes to physiological changes.
Authors: for well-trained competitive cyclists, intervals at low cadence are probably better than high-cadence intervals at improving performance; the effects may be tied to what the training does to testosterone and to maximum oxygen uptake.
Practical Application
"Are low-cadence sprints better than high-cadence ones?" In 18 well-trained road cyclists in season (randomised parallel trial, sex not stated), 4 weeks of 8 sessions combining explosive single-leg jumps with high-intensity ergometer sprints at 60-70 rpm improved peak power by 3.6% (+/-3.7%) and 4-mM lactate power by 7.0% (+/-5.9%) more than the same sessions with sprints at 110-120 rpm; the 60-s power difference, 2.5% (+/-4.8%), has confidence limits spanning zero. The comparison is low against very high cadence, not against the rider's own cadence, and every session also contained jumps.
What it supports: inside short, high-intensity sprint work, a 60-70 rpm cadence was probably better than 110-120 rpm for these outcomes. What it does not support: that low-cadence work beats riding at a freely chosen cadence, that it builds strength, or that it improves economy (unclear here).
Inference, not tested here: because both arms jumped, the result is about the cadence of the sprints inside a combined jump-plus-sprint session; it cannot be read as the effect of low-cadence riding on its own.
Inference, not tested here: the higher salivary testosterone response in the low-cadence group is an acute session marker; the paper does not show that it caused the performance difference (correlations were unclear).
Limitations
n=18 split into 2 groups; no non-training control group; 4 weeks only.
Comparator is 110-120 rpm, far above a typical freely chosen cadence, so the advantage may partly reflect a poor high-cadence arm rather than a benefit of low cadence over normal cadence.
Both groups did explosive single-leg jumps in every session; cadence effect cannot be separated from the combined session.
60-s power difference has 90% confidence limits spanning zero (2.5% +/-4.8%); the authors write "probably".
Abstract gives no sex, age, VO2max, sprint duration, resistance or seated/standing position.
Ergometer outcomes only; no road race or time-trial longer than 60 s.
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level
(parallel RCT, n=18)