REF-258 · Dunst, Hesse & Ueberschär, 2024 · Frontiers in Physiology, 2024; · Paper

Understanding optimal cadence dynamics: a systematic analysis of the power-velocity relationship in track cyclists with increasing exercise intensity

Blimited evidenceMeasured on elite athletesWritten before October 2026, being re-checked

Participants

n=14 professional track cyclists (9 sprinters, 5 endurance athletes).

Protocol

On an SRM ergometer: submaximal incremental tests, high-intensity cycling trials and maximal sprints at 60, 90 and 120 rpm. HR, VO2 and blood lactate were regressed against power at each cadence; work rates at LT1, FATmax, MLSS and VO2max were found with cadence-specific inverse functions, and state-specific force-velocity and power-velocity profiles gave an optimal cadence for each state. Fatigue-free profiles came from the sprint data.

Key Results

Metabolic stateOptimal cadence (rpm)
LT166.18 ± 3.00
FATmax76.01 ± 3.36
MLSS82.24 ± 2.59
VO2max84.49 ± 2.66
Fatigue-free (sprint)135 ± 11
Optimal cadence increased sigmoidally with intensity (p < 0.01, η² = 0.936)
HR and VO2 were linear with work rate; blood lactate exponential, influenced by cadence (p < 0.05, η² ≥ 0.655)
Sprinters and endurance athletes did not differ in optimal cadence at LT1, FATmax, MLSS or VO2max — but did differ in the fatigue-free optimum (p < 0.001, d = 2.215)

Mechanism

Authors' interpretation: threshold-specific jumps in optimal cadence suggest a shift toward faster muscle-fibre types beyond each threshold; they argue movement velocity should be built into Henneman's size principle and the critical-power curve, and that intensity zones should be expressed as a function of movement velocity, not in absolute terms.

Inference, not tested: the "lower cadence minimises internal work at low intensity" reading is standard cycling biomechanics, not a measurement from this paper.

Practical Application

n=14 professional track cyclists (9 sprinters, 5 endurance) on an SRM ergometer: the energetically optimal cadence rose sigmoidally with intensity — 66 rpm at LT1, 76 at FATmax, 82 at MLSS, 84 at VO2max (p < 0.01) — with a fatigue-free sprint optimum of 135 ± 11 rpm; sprinters and endurance riders shared the same submaximal optima and differed only in the sprint optimum — the metabolically optimal cadence at endurance intensities is well below the 90 rpm many riders default to.
Cadence prescription by intensity, from this table: easy/LT1 rides mid-60s to mid-70s; threshold work low 80s; VO2max work mid-80s. Not from this paper; the base's own practice: allowing 85-95 rpm on VO2max intervals and 100+ rpm for sprint/neuromuscular work — the paper's VO2max optimum is 84 and its only high-cadence figure is the 135 rpm fatigue-free sprint value.
Inference, not tested: the paper's optimum is the cadence that minimises metabolic cost at each state in track cyclists in a lab; a rider's self-selected cadence on the road also reflects fatigue, terrain and inertia (REF-262, REF-261).
Inference, not tested: for variable-terrain racing, let cadence follow intensity — lower on steady climbs at LT1-threshold, higher only for surges toward VO2max.
Inference, not tested: in ERG mode power is fixed but cadence is free, so the rider can self-select cadence per intensity rather than defaulting to 90 rpm.

Limitations

Track cyclists (sprinters + endurance), not road/gravel cyclists — may differ
Age and body mass not given in the abstract
Lab ergometer at three fixed cadences (60, 90, 120 rpm) — optima are interpolated from regressions, not measured directly
Single testing session — no chronic adaptation data; n=14
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

regraded 2026-09-27 from A: single-group measurement study, n=14; "systematic analysis" in the title is not a systematic review

Content correction 2026-09-27
Level A -> B: this is a single-group measurement study with n=14, not a systematic review; Tier "mixed (systematic review)" -> Tier 4 (professional track cyclists). Sport "cycling, sprint" -> cycling.
Removed numbers not in the abstract: age 19.5 ± 3.8 yr, mass 83.7 ± 7.4 kg, "100-300 W", "6 s sprints + 4-min"; removed the athlete-specific watt bands (210-220 / 260 / 320-340 W) and "our current 90-95 validated" from the Practical table — those were personal numbers, not the paper's.
"No difference between sprinters and endurance athletes at any threshold" -> the abstract reports a difference in the fatigue-free optimum (p < 0.001, d = 2.215); exact optima with decimals restored; lead now the study's finding, house cadence bands labelled as the base's practice.