Lactate Power Research Articles

Effects of Low- vs. High-Cadence Interval Training on Cycling Performance

High-resistance interval training produces substantial gains in sprint and endurance performance of cyclists in the competitive phase of a season. Here, we report the effect of changing the cadence of the intervals. We randomized 18 road cyclists to 2 groups for 4 weeks of training. Both groups replaced part of their usual training with 8 30-minute sessions consisting of sets of explosive single-leg jumps alternating with sets of high-intensity cycling sprints performed at either low cadence (60-70 min(-1)) or high cadence (110-120 min(-1)) on a training ergometer. Testosterone concentration was assayed in saliva samples collected before and after each session. Cycle ergometry before and after the intervention provided measures of performance (mean power in a 60-s time trial, incremental peak power, 4-mM lactate power) and physiologic indices of endurance performance (maximum oxygen uptake, exercise economy, fractional utilization of maximum oxygen uptake). Testosterone concentration in each session increased by 97% +/- 39% (mean +/- between-subject SD) in the low-cadence group but by only 62% +/- 23% in the high-cadence group. Performance in the low-cadence group improved more than in the high-cadence group, with mean differences of 2.5% (90% confidence limits, +/-4.8%) for 60-second mean power, 3.6% (+/-3.7%) for peak power, and 7.0% (+/-5.9%) for 4-mM lactate power. Maximum oxygen uptake showed a corresponding mean difference of 3.2% (+/-4.2%), but differences for other physiologic indices were unclear. Correlations between changes in performance and physiology were also unclear. Low-cadence interval training is probably more effective than high-cadence training in improving performance of well-trained competitive cyclists. The effects on performance may be related to training-associated effects on testosterone and to effects on maximum oxygen uptake.

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

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.