In Norwegian, the traditional term for low cadence training is styrketråkk. Which directly translates to “strength pedaling”.
When I came into cycling 10 years ago, I was at full-throttle Dunning-Kruger and deemed low cadence training old-fashioned and useless.
After all, there was no convincing scientific evidence it worked. Plus, the rationale didn’t sit well with me. I strongly doubted the load was sufficient to induce much effect on muscular strength.
I’ve since changed my position. And I’ll get back to why that is shortly.
However, more interesting than my opinion is the new study on low cadence cycling that was recently published in the scientific journal PLoS One (1).
What did they do?
The authors wanted to compare the effect training with low cadence versus preferred cadence.
So they designed an 8-week polarized training period consisting of:
- low intensity training
- sprint interval training
- high intensity intervals
The cyclists were divided into a low cadence group and a preferred cadence group. The low cadence group performed sprint intervals at 50-70 RPM and high intensity intervals at 60-70 RPM. Whereas the preferred cadence group used their preferred cadence (>80 RPM) for both interval formats.
The study protocol applied the following 4-day microcycle:
Day 1 included sprint intervals where they performed 8-12 sprints of 30 seconds. 90 second rest was applied between each sprint, and after 4 sprints there was a further 25 min recovery period with active recovery.
Day 2 they trained high intensity intervals with 4-6 repetitions of 4 minute efforts (90-100% of maximal aerobic power).
Day 3 consisted of low intensity training.
Day 4 was a recovery day.
After completing this 4-day cycle they started over again on day 1 in the next microcycle. The amount of repetitions for sprint and high intensity intervals increased during the 8-week period.
Who were the riders?
24 female cyclists participated in the study.
They were well-trained, aged 17-20 years, all with at least 3 years of cycling experience. They trained at least 10 hours per week and participated in at least 15 race per year.
What did they find?
Overall, the low cadence group achieved development in more performance measures than the preferred cadence group.
Specifically, the low cadence group improved their VT1, VT2, VO2 max, maximal aerobic power and minute pulmonary ventilation. Whereas the preferred cadence group only improved VO2 max (measured in absolute volume).
The group-wise development in VO2 max, power for VT1 and VT2, and maximal aerobic power were (in low and preferred cadence groups, respectively):
- VO2 max: +8.7% vs +4.6%
- VT1 power: +21.8% vs +7.9%
- VT2 power: +17.5% vs +3.7%
- Maximal aerobic power: +8.1% vs +3.0%
Of note, the preferred cadence group on average gained 0.7 kg body mass. Whereas the low cadence group tested the same average body mass before and after the experiment.
This could slightly impact relative measures of VO2 max, but you wouldn’t expect this to negatively impact absolute power results.
Caveats
A few things are worth considering when interpreting these results.
For starters, this experiment was conducted after a period with exclusively low intensity training. As such, you would expect any added intensity work to produce added cycling performance. If we were to conduct the same experiment on a group accustomed to high intensity training, we could perhaps expect to see smaller performance gains. And thereby possibly also a smaller difference between the groups?
That being said, the authors also highlight the fact that the sprint interval training format may have limited the reported development. This argument is based on the fact that past research suggest that female athletes have a higher content of slow-twitch muscle fibers. Which may serve to limit the stimulus and adaptation induced by sprint interval training.
Finally, the study was relatively short in duration and with a modest sample size. But hey, that’s all experimental exercise science for you – so we got to go with what we have.
Some personal thoughts on low cadence training
I mentioned before that I’ve changed my position on low cadence training.
Whereas the overall body of literature on low cadence training is still showing conflicting results, a few things tip the scale in favor of considering low cadence training in my book.
- There is an increasing body of literature showing positive training results.
The above study being one of them. While the evidence isn’t overwhelming, it’s arguably growing.
- It appears to be working in real life.
Speaking to a range of experienced World Tour coaches has also contributed to changing my mind. I say this knowing that elite sports is littered with copious amounts of fads and BS practices. And we are all prone to our biases.
However, these individuals are not just highly accomplished and experienced coaches, but also very scientifically oriented exercise physiologists. Which adds weight to their observations and interpretation of their field data.
- Is the science lagging behind best practice?
As many have pointed out before me, few of the study published to date have use the low cadence or torque training protocols that seem to be practiced on the World Tour.
Anecdotally, these are typically being prescribed by duration and RPM, with the monitored outcome being torque, as opposed to power or HR. The purpose being to increase the amount of torque you are able to sustain, rather than targeting any given percentage of a physiological turnpoint.
Many athletes (and coaches) argue that the science have yet to actually test the methods that are being applied as “best practice” in the pro peloton. So there is also that to consider.
Should I jump on the low cadence bandwagon?
Well, that depends.
The question isn’t if low cadence training is better than all other training methods. Let’s avoid thinking in black and whites only.
Instead, it’s probably better to think of low cadence training as yet another tool in your bag. One that you could decide to pull out and experiment with.
As always, what’s best will often depend on your circumstances, training background, time of your training year and what goals you are training for.
Finally, take into consideration that this type of work takes quite the toll on your soft tissue structure. So it pays to be well-prepared when taking on low cadence work. Preferably having done strength training – or at the very least applying a careful approach by progressing slowly from not-too-low cadences and modest effort durations.
Food for thought.
References:
- Hebisz R & Hebisz P. Greater improvement in aerobic capacity after a polarized training program including cycling interval training at low cadence (50-70 RPM) than freely chosen cadence (above 80 RPM). PLos ONE, 2024; 19(11):e0311833