REF-852 · Nimmerichter et al., 2011 · European Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. · Paper · PubMed

Effects of Low and High Cadence Interval Training on Power Output in Flat and Uphill Cycling Time-Trials

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

Eighteen male cyclists were randomised to twice-weekly interval training for 4 weeks, six 5-min bouts at the power of the respiratory compensation point (RCP), ridden either uphill at 60 rev/min (Int60) or on level ground at 100 rev/min (Int100), or to a control group without intervals.

Laboratory graded-test measures rose (Pmax 2.8 ± 3.0%, power at RCP 3.6 ± 6.3%) with no group effect. In 20-min time trials there was a group × test interaction: Int60 increased power in both the uphill (4.4 ± 5.3%) and the flat (1.5 ± 4.5%) time trial, Int100 changed -1.3 ± 3.6% uphill and 2.6 ± 6.0% flat, and the control group changed 4.0 ± 4.6% uphill and -3.5 ± 5.4% flat.

Power was higher uphill than on the flat before and after training.

Participants

n=18 male cyclists (abstract: "Eighteen male cyclists"), VO2max 58.6 ± 5.4 mL min(-1) kg(-1), randomly assigned to Int60, Int100 or control (group sizes not given in the abstract).

Protocol

Int60: low-cadence (60 rev min(-1)) uphill intervals.
Int100: high-cadence (100 rev min(-1)) level-ground intervals.
Control (Con): no interval training.
Intervals: two sessions per week for 4 weeks, each six bouts of 5 min at the power at the respiratory compensation point (RCP).
Tests before and after: laboratory graded exercise test (GXT); 20-min uphill (TTup) and flat (TTflat) time trials.

Key Results

Laboratory graded test (all groups together, no significant group effect):

Pmax +2.8 ± 3.0% (p < 0.01); power at RCP +3.6 ± 6.3% and VO2 at RCP +4.7 ± 8.2% (p < 0.05); VO2 at the ventilatory threshold +4.9 ± 5.6% (p < 0.01).

Time-trial power, change pre → post (group × test × time interaction, p < 0.05):

Group20-min uphill TT20-min flat TT
Int60 (60 rev/min, uphill)+4.4 ± 5.3%+1.5 ± 4.5%
Int100 (100 rev/min, flat)-1.3 ± 3.6%+2.6 ± 6.0%
Control+4.0 ± 4.6%-3.5 ± 5.4%
Power was significantly higher in the uphill than in the flat time trial: by 4.4 ± 6.0% before and 6.3 ± 5.6% after training (p < 0.001).
The authors suggest the higher forces of low-cadence intervals are potentially beneficial, and that time trials, unlike the GXT, detect specific adaptations.

Practical Application

In eighteen male cyclists (VO2max 58.6), 4 weeks of 6 × 5-min intervals at RCP power twice a week raised 20-min time-trial power by 4.4 ± 5.3% uphill and 1.5 ± 4.5% on the flat when ridden uphill at 60 rev/min, whereas the same intervals at 100 rev/min on the flat changed uphill power by -1.3 ± 3.6% and flat power by 2.6 ± 6.0% (small parallel RCT). Low-cadence climbing intervals improved both time trials in this study; high-cadence flat intervals did not help the climb.
Read the size with care: the control group, which did no intervals, gained 4.0 ± 4.6% uphill, as much as the low-cadence group; the uphill gain in Int60 cannot be credited to the intervals alone from the abstract.
Riders produced more power uphill than on the flat (by 4.4-6.3%); set climbing and flat targets separately rather than using one number.
The laboratory graded test improved equally in all groups and missed the terrain-specific differences; test with a time trial on the terrain you race on.
Not from this paper; the base's own practice: low cadence as an accent on hard sessions, not as a main protocol (SYNTH-55; REF-118 found very-low-cadence moderate work gave nothing).

Limitations

n=18 split three ways (about six per group); large SDs relative to the changes.
The control group improved uphill time-trial power by 4.0 ± 4.6% and fell on the flat, which the abstract does not explain.
Men only; four weeks; group sizes and intensity control on the road are not described in the abstract.
Written from the abstract and record metadata only (full text not read).
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

parallel RCT, n=18 in three groups