Low cadence interval training at moderate intensity does not improve cycling performance in highly trained veteran cyclists

Effect of Cycling Cadence on Neuromuscular Function: A Systematic Review of Acute and Chronic Alterations

There is a wide range of cadence available to cyclists to produce power, yet they choose to pedal across a narrow one. While neuromuscular alterations during a pedaling bout at non-preferred cadences were previously reviewed, modifications subsequent to one fatiguing session or training intervention have not been focused on. We performed a systematic literature search of PubMed and Web of Science up to the end of 2020. Thirteen relevant articles were identified, among which eleven focused on fatigability and two on training intervention. Cadences were mainly defined as “low” and “high” compared with a range of freely chosen cadences for given power output. However, the heterogeneity of selected cadences, neuromuscular assessment methodology, and selected population makes the comparison between the studies complicated. Even though cycling at a high cadence and high intensity impaired more neuromuscular function and performance than low-cadence cycling, it remains unclear if cycling cadence plays a role in the onset of fatigue. Research concerning the effect of training at non-preferred cadences on neuromuscular adaptation allows us to encourage the use of various training stimuli but not to say whether a range of cadences favors subsequent neuromuscular performance.

Gross Efficiency and The Relationship with Maximum Oxygen Uptake in Young Elite Cyclists During the Competitive Season

This study assessed gross efficiency (GE) during a single competitive season and determined the relationship between GE and maximum oxygen uptake (V̇O_2max) in young elite cyclists (n = 15, 20.1 ± 1.4 yrs, 177.5 ± 5.7 cm, 68.3 ± 6.2 kg, 45.2 ± 7.5 mm of six skinfolds) during a competitive season. Participants completed at two occasions (T1 = April; T2 = July), a progressive bike protocol (initial intensity = 100 W, 35 W increments every 3 min) until volitional exhaustion to assess V̇O_2max and submaximal variables. A single capillary blood sample was drawn from the left earlobe immediately after completion of each exercise load to determine lactate thresholds. Cyclists' GE was calculated as ([work accomplished/energy expended] x 100). No significant differences were obtained in GE at any workload between T1 and T2 or in the mean GE between T1 (19.3%) and T2 (19.4%) testing (p = 0.93). No significant association was found between mean GE and V̇O_2max at either T1 (r = -0.28, p = 0.30), or T2 (r = -0.27, p = 0.32). GE of young elite cyclists might not vary during the most important phase of the training season and GE was not related to V̇O_2max. A lower accumulated volume and intensity of training of these cyclists may account for their lower GE in comparison to older professional cyclists and might not have been enough to foster higher increases of GE in cyclists with lower V̇O_2max.

Joint specific power production in cycling: The effect of cadence and intensity

Background

The effect of cadence and work rate on the joint specific power production in cycling has previously been studied, but research has primarily focused on cadences above 60 rpm, without examining the effect of low cadence on joint contribution to power.

Purpose

Our purpose was to investigate joint specific power production in recreational and elite cyclists during low- and moderate cycling at a range of different cadences.

Methods

18 male cyclists (30.9 ± 2.7 years with a work rate in watt at lactate threshold of 282.3 ± 9.3 W) performed cycling bouts at seven different pedalling rates and three intensities. Joint specific power was calculated from kinematic measurements and pedal forces using inverse dynamics at a total of 21 different stages.

Results

A main effect of cadence on the relative to the total joint power for hip-, knee- and ankle joint power was found (all p < 0.05). Increasing cadence led to increasing knee joint power and decreasing hip joint power (all p < 0.05), with the exception at low cadence (<60 rpm), where there was no effect of cadence. The elite cyclists had higher relative hip joint power compared to the recreational group (p < 0.05). The hip joint power at moderate intensity with a freely chosen cadence (FCC) was lower than the hip joint power at low intensity with a low cadence (<60 rpm) (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that there is an effect of cadence on the hip- and knee joint contribution in cycling, however, the effect only occurs from 60 rpm and upward. It also demonstrates that there is a difference in joint contribution between elite- and recreational cyclists, and provide evidence for the possibility of achieving higher relative hip joint power at low intensity than moderate intensity by altering the cadence.

Effects of Initial Performance, Gross Efficiency and O 2peak Characteristics on Subsequent Adaptations to Endurance Training in Competitive Cyclists

The present study investigated the effects of initial levels of cycling performance, peak oxygen uptake (O_2peak) and gross efficiency (GE) on the subsequent adaptations of these variables and their relationship following high-intensity training (HIT) designed to increase O_2peak in competitive cyclists. Sixty cyclists (O_2peak = 61 ± 6 mL kg^-1 min^-1) were assigned a 12-week training program consisting of twenty-four supervised high-intensity interval training sessions and ad libitum low intensity training. GE was calculated at 125, 175, and 225 W and performance was determined by mean power during a 40-min time-trial (Power_{40 min}). In addition to correlation analyses between initial level and pre- to post-intervention changes of the different variables, we compared these changes between four groups where participants were categorized with either low and/or high initial levels of O_2peak and GE. Average volume of high- and low-intensity training during the 12-week intervention was 1.5 ± 0.3 and 8.3 ± 2.7 h·week^-1, respectively. Following the 12-week training period, there was a significant increase in absolute and body mass normalized O_2peak and Power_{40 min} (p < 0.05) and a significant decrease in GE (p < 0.05) for all athletes pooled. There was no change in body mass following the 12-week training period. We found a moderate negative correlation between initial level of O_2peak and the change in O_2peak following the training period (r = -0.32; p < 0.05). A small negative correlation was also found between initial Power_{40 min} and its change following training both when expressed in absolute power and power normalized for body mass (r = -0.27 and -0.28; both p < 0.05). A moderate negative correlation was also found between initial levels for GE and its change following training (r = -0.44; p < 0.01). There were no differences between the four groups based on initial levels of O_2peak and GE in the response to training on O_2peak, GE, or Power_{40 min} (all p > 0.12). In conclusion, the present findings suggest that there are statistically significant effects of initial levels of cycling performance and O_2peak and on the subsequent adaptations following a 12-week HIT program, but the small and moderate effects indicate limited influence on training practice.

The effect of low- vs high-cadence interval training on the freely chosen cadence and performance in endurance-trained cyclists

The aim of this study was to determine the effects of high- and low-cadence interval training on the freely chosen cadence (FCC) and performance in endurance-trained cyclists. Sixteen male endurance-trained cyclists completed a series of submaximal rides at 60% maximal power (Wmax) at cadences of 50, 70, 90, and 110 r·min(-1), and their FCC to determine their preferred cadence, gross efficiency (GE), rating of perceived exertion, and crank torque profile. Performance was measured via a 15-min time trial, which was preloaded with a cycle at 60% Wmax. Following the testing, the participants were randomly assigned to a high-cadence (HC) (20% above FCC) or a low-cadence (LC) (20% below FCC) group for 18 interval-based training sessions over 6 weeks. The HC group increased their FCC from 92 to 101 r·min(-1) after the intervention (p = 0.01), whereas the LC group remained unchanged (93 r·min(-1)). GE increased from 22.7% to 23.6% in the HC group at 90 r·min(-1) (p = 0.05), from 20.0% to 20.9% at 110 r·min(-1) (p = 0.05), and from 22.8% to 23.2% at their FCC. Both groups significantly increased their total distance and average power output following training, with the LC group recording a superior performance measure. There were minimal changes to the crank torque profile in both groups following training. This study demonstrated that the FCC can be altered with HC interval training and that the determinants of the optimal cycling cadence are multifactorial and not completely understood. Furthermore, LC interval training may significantly improve time-trial results of short duration as a result of an increase in strength development or possible neuromuscular adaptations.