REF-117 · Hansen & Rønnestad, 2017 · International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, Vol. · Paper · PubMed

Effects of Cycling Training at Imposed Low Cadences: A Systematic Review

A-fairly strong evidenceMeasured on trained to highly trained athletesWritten before October 2026, being re-checked

Methodology

Systematic MEDLINE and SPORTDiscus search up to April 2016; titles and abstracts screened, then original-research articles on adaptation to training at different imposed cadences selected. 7 articles evaluated. No meta-analysis.

Low-Cadence Definition

"Low cadence = below the freely chosen cadence." Because cadence choice depends on power output, 80 rpm can be a low cadence at maximal effort, whereas at low power output the cadence has to be below 80 rpm (e.g. 40-70 rpm) to count as low.

Key Findings from 7 Studies

1. No strong evidence for a benefit of low-cadence training.

In some of the included studies, low-cadence training showed no clear performance benefit
Some even indicate a superior effect from training at the freely chosen cadence

2. Heterogeneity:

The studies are considerably dissimilar in participant characteristics and in the applied training regimens — hence no pooled estimate

3. Cautious recommendation:

> The authors tentatively suggest that riders consider adding low-cadence cycling bouts at moderate to maximal intensity to their training

— the authors call the recommendation restrained for the reasons above

4. Neuromuscular rationale — not from this abstract: the idea that high torque per revolution at low cadence recruits Type II fibres during aerobic work is the usual justification; it is carried by REF-084, not established by this review.

Practical Application

Systematic review of 7 studies (Hansen & Rønnestad 2017): there is no strong evidence that training at imposed low cadences improves cycling performance — some studies found no effect and some found freely chosen cadence better — so the authors only tentatively suggest including some low-cadence bouts at moderate to maximal intensity. Low-cadence work is at most a supplement; nothing here justifies making it a pillar of a plan.
If you include it, do it at moderate to maximal intensity — that is the only form the review is willing to suggest; easy-pace low-cadence pedalling has no support here.
"Low" is relative to your own freely chosen cadence and to power: 80 rpm counts as low in a maximal effort, while at easy power it needs to be around 40-70 rpm.
Treat it as a neuromuscular complement to gym strength work, not a replacement (REF-078); the review does not compare the two.
Not from this paper: specific session prescriptions (e.g. 4×8 min at a set wattage, 55 rpm progressions from Z2 to LT2) — see REF-084 for a trial protocol that did show gains with 50-70 rpm HIT.

Limitations

Only 7 studies, heterogeneous in cadence prescription, intensity, duration and outcome — the review synthesises a thin and inconsistent literature.
Mixed tiers pooled; the effect in trained amateurs and in elites cannot be separated at this evidence volume.
Most included work is short and laboratory-based, with cycling economy or power outcomes rather than race performance.
The comparison favouring gym strength work over on-bike low cadence is indirect — the review does not pool head-to-head trials of the two.
Publication and small-study bias are plausible across a literature this size, and the review cannot correct for them.
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

regraded 2026-09-27 from A: systematic review of 7 heterogeneous studies, no pooling

Content correction 2026-09-27
First application bullet ("Low cadence 50-60 rpm as Z2 component: 4×8 min @200-215 W", 55 rpm progression) -> weak evidence, at most a supplement at moderate-maximal intensity; athlete-specific wattage and progression removed.
"Neuromuscular stimulus present / Type II recruitment" -> not in this abstract; marked as carried by REF-014/REF-084.
Level A -> A- (systematic review of 7 heterogeneous studies without meta-analysis).
Cross-references to duplicate stubs repointed to their canonical entries (REF-014->REF-084); the stubs were emptied on 2026-09-27.
Cross-reference descriptions checked against the cited entries' current content; wrong years, wrong entries and claims the cited entry does not make were corrected.