Effects of High- vs Low-Cadence Interval Training on Physiology and Performance of Competitive Cyclists

Abstract

PURPOSE. High-resistance interval training produces substantial gains in sprint and endurance performance when added to the usual training of cyclists in the competitive phase of a season. Here we report the effect of changing the cadence of the intervals on performance and physiology. METHODS: We randomised 18 road cyclists to a low-cadence (60–70 min−1) or high-cadence (110–120 min−1) group for 4–5 wk of training. Both groups replaced part of their usual training with eight 30-min sessions consisting of three sets of explosive single-leg jumps (20 for each leg) alternating with three sets of high-intensity cycling sprints (5x 30 s with 30-s recoveries between repetitions) performed on a training ergometer with resistance set individually to achieve the desired cadence. Saliva samples were collected before and after each training session to assay testosterone concentration. Performance and physiological measures, obtained on a cycle ergometer before and after the intervention, were mean power in a 60-s time trial and the following measures obtained from a continuous incremental test: peak power, maximum oxygen uptake, 4-mM lactate power, fractional utilization of maximum oxygen uptake at 4-mM lactate, and exercise economy. RESULTS: Power output in the interval sets over the training period increased by 11.0% ± 5.4% (mean ± SD) in the low-cadence group and by 8.3% ± 2.1% in the high-cadence group. Testosterone concentration increased in each training session, by 96% ± 25% (mean ± between-session SD) in the low-cadence group and by 62% ± 20% in the high-cadence group. There were substantial enhancements in performance in the low-cadence group (6–11 %) and high-cadence group (2–3%). Mean changes (±90% confidence limits) in the low-cadence group relative to the high-cadence group were: 60-s mean power, 2.5% (±4.8%); peak power, 3.6% (±3.7%); maximum oxygen uptake, 3.2% (±4.2%); 4-mM lactate power, 7.0% (±5.9%); fractional utilization, 0.9% (±4.9%); and exercise economy at 50% and 80% of pre-testpeak power, 5.1% (±4.9%) and 0.2% (±4.1%) respectively. CONCLUSION. Low-cadence interval training is probably more effective than high-cadence training in improving performance of well-trained competitive cyclists. The differences in performance could be due to different effects of the two training cadences on economy and maximum oxygen uptake, possibly mediated in part by training-induced changes in testosterone.