REF-119 · Barranco-Gil et al., 2024 · Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, Vol. · Paper · PubMed
Relative Pedaling Forces Are Low During Cycling
Participants
n=11 cyclists.
Protocol
Mechanical force demands were quantified relative to each rider's maximum dynamic force (MDF) while pedaling at:
Intensities: ventilatory threshold (VT), maximum lactate steady state (MLSS), respiratory compensation point (RCP), maximal aerobic power (MAP)
Cadences: free, 40 rpm, 60 rpm, 80 rpm
Plus: all-out resisted sprints
Key Results
Relative force demands (%MDF) increased progressively with higher intensity (p < 0.001) and with lower cadence (p < 0.001).
Even so, relative force demands were low — below 54% of MDF — in ALL conditions, including the heaviest combination (maximal aerobic power at 40 rpm), i.e. during so-called "torque training".
The abstract reports no per-condition %MDF values beyond the < 54% ceiling; the authors suggest the data can guide programming of on-bike resistance training aimed at torque production.
Mechanism and Significance
Inference, not tested: if the heaviest sustainable on-bike condition sits below 54% MDF, then pedaling — at any cadence and intensity short of an all-out sprint — is a submaximal load by strength-training standards, which is why low-cadence "torque" work is a weak substitute for gym strength training.
Not from this paper; the base's own practice: we prescribe heavy strength in the gym (multi-set work at 4RM-type loads, i.e. roughly 85-90% 1RM — see the Cross-References) for strength adaptation, and treat low-cadence riding as a neuromuscular accent inside aerobic work, not as the strength stimulus. The 70-85% 1RM threshold for strength adaptation is a general strength-training convention, not a result of this study.
Practical Application
In 11 cyclists, the force needed to pedal stayed below 54% of maximal dynamic force in every condition tested — from ventilatory threshold to maximal aerobic power, at free cadence and at 40, 60 and 80 rpm — even in the "torque training" condition of MAP at 40 rpm; force rose with intensity and with slower cadence, but never approached maximal.
Low-cadence riding therefore does not replace gym strength work: keep the heavy loading in the gym and use low-cadence intervals, if at all, as a neuromuscular accent inside hard aerobic work.
Inference, not tested: because relative force rises with intensity and falls with cadence, on-bike "torque" work makes most sense at high intensity and the lowest practical cadence; at moderate intensity it is a low-force stimulus.
Not from this paper: for a direct test of on-bike torque work at higher vs lower relative force (all-out pedal cycles at 70% MDF vs 4-min intervals at 35% MDF), see REF-428 (de Pablos 2026): only the high-force version showed within-group adaptation, but head-to-head the two were not significantly different.
Limitations
n=11 cyclists, single laboratory session design; only relative force (not adaptation) was measured; the abstract does not describe the riders' level.
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level
regraded 2026-09-27 from B+: descriptive measurement study, n=11, no intervention
Content correction 2026-09-27
Key-results table gave per-condition values ("VT < 30%", "MLSS ~30-35%", "MAP ~35-40%", "sprint ~100% MDF") -> the abstract reports only that all conditions were < 54% MDF and that force rose with intensity and fell with cadence; invented values deleted.
"≥ 70-85% 1RM required for strength adaptation", "4×4RM", "2-3 gym sessions/week weeks 1-3", "works only at 90-100% MAP", "train both modalities at ~70% MDF/1RM" -> not from this paper; deleted or relabelled as inference / base practice.
Level B+ -> B (measurement study, n=11); Sport "cycling, sprint" -> cycling; cross-reference numbers trimmed to what those papers are cited for.