REF-255 · Mater, Clos & Lepers, 2021 · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2021; · Paper
Effect of Cycling Cadence on Neuromuscular Function: A Systematic Review of Acute and Chronic Alterations
13 studies; high cadence at high intensity impairs neuromuscular function and performance more than low cadence, but no cadence range can be recommended
Scope
Systematic search of PubMed and Web of Science up to the end of 2020.
13 relevant articles: 11 on fatigability after a single cycling bout, 2 on training interventions at non-preferred cadences.
Cadences were mostly defined as "low" or "high" relative to the freely chosen cadence at a given power.
Key Findings — Acute Effects (single fatiguing bout)
Cycling at a high cadence AND high intensity impaired neuromuscular function and performance more than low-cadence cycling.
Beyond that, the authors state it remains unclear whether cadence plays a role in the onset of fatigue.
Heterogeneity in the cadences chosen, the neuromuscular assessment methods and the populations made comparisons between studies difficult.
Key Findings — Chronic Adaptations (training at non-preferred cadences)
The two training studies allow the authors to encourage varied training stimuli, but not to say whether any cadence range favours subsequent neuromuscular performance.
Practical Application
A systematic review of 13 studies (11 on fatigue after one session, 2 on training) found one consistent signal — cycling at a high cadence and high intensity impaired neuromuscular function and performance more than low-cadence cycling — and concluded it remains unclear whether cadence affects the onset of fatigue and that no cadence range can be recommended for later neuromuscular performance; varied cadence stimuli are encouraged. For an athlete: there is no evidence-based "right" cadence for intervals; the one thing to expect is that very hard work spun fast leaves the legs more impaired afterwards.
Inference, not tested: after a high-cadence, high-intensity session, do not schedule sprints or jumps the same day — the review's one robust finding is that neuromuscular function is more impaired after such work.
Not from this paper; the base's own practice: ERG mode at a fixed cadence removes the rider's own cadence selection, so the base includes free-cadence (ERG off) sessions before races; the numbers the base uses for low- and high-cadence work are house practice, not from this review.
Limitations
High heterogeneity across studies in cadence definitions, test protocols, assessment methods and populations (stated by the authors).
Only 2 training-intervention studies — no basis for long-term cadence-training recommendations.
Narrative synthesis only; no meta-analysis.
No study of ERG-mode cadence control.
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level
regraded 2026-09-27 from A: systematic review with no pooled analysis, 13 heterogeneous studies
Content correction 2026-09-27
"Preferred cadence 80-90 rpm", "VO2max intervals at 85-95 rpm", "strength-endurance at 60-70 rpm", "chronic studies 9-12 weeks", "leg press strength" -> none of these figures are in the abstract, and the abstract says explicitly that no cadence range can be recommended; removed. ERG/cadence-variety advice kept only as house practice.
Finding table (EMG drift, type II glycogen depletion, peak-force maintenance) -> not in the abstract; replaced with the abstract's single robust finding (high cadence + high intensity impairs more) and its "unclear" verdict on fatigue onset.
Scope "12 acute + 2 chronic" -> 13 articles: 11 fatigability, 2 training. Sport line "cycling, strength, sprint" -> cycling.
Level A -> A-: systematic review without meta-analysis, heterogeneous small studies.
Full text (checked 2026-10-12)
The Results section reports 14 included studies (12 on fatiguing bouts and two on training interventions, including one conference presentation available only as an abstract), whereas the abstract says thirteen (full text).
Participants in seven of the single-bout studies were cyclists, the others healthy weightlifters or team sport players; fatiguing bouts lasted from ≈4 min to 1 h at ≈35% to 95% of peak power output, with cadences from 40 rpm to 110 rpm (full text).
The authors conclude that a high cadence at sufficiently high intensity impairs dynamic neuromuscular performance more than low or preferred cadences "at least in untrained cyclists", and note that when participants were regular cyclists, modulating cadence did not impact neuromuscular performance as expected (full text).
After 6 min at the same work rate (236 ± 30 W), the power decrement during a 25 s sprint was greater after cycling at 120 than at 60 rpm, and after 30 min at the onset of blood lactate accumulation, leg press repetitions were fewer after 100 rpm than after 50 rpm or control (full text).
Time to exhaustion at 95% PPO was longer at FCC −20% than at FCC +20%, with no difference from FCC in either condition (full text).
Kristoffersen et al. (2014): 22 well trained male veteran cyclists added two 90-min sessions per week for 12 weeks, either 5 × 6 min with 3 min of recovery at 40 rpm or moderate intensity at FCC (about 95 rpm); neither improved 1RM leg press or leg extension (full text, Table 1).
Gergley (2011): 14 young moderately trained males did resistance training plus cycling at 65% HRmax at 70 rpm or 90 rpm, 2 sessions per week for 9 weeks; only the 70 rpm group improved 1RM leg press (full text, Table 1).
Professional cyclists prefer cadences above 90 rpm, while active recreational cyclists use around 80 rpm (full text).