 Does training with a low cadence or doing big gear intervals improve your cycling performance? This is the question that we're going to be getting into today by taking a look at the science. A lot of the research that I'll be referencing also tested high cadence training, so we'll get to see whether either strategy is effective. The answer may surprise you. Welcome back to another video. If you're a serious cyclist, you've probably heard other riders, coaches, and even pros talk about the benefits of low cadence training or low cadence intervals. Yeah man, you know, I just drop it in the 53.11 and then go looking for the steepest climb I can find. I mean, I'd probably go through three or four chains a month doing that, but it's totally worth it to have quads that are completely disproportionate to the rest of your body. This is a very common thing to see in a training plan, and I've heard a lot of different justifications for it, but the most common theme is that it's sort of like strength training on the bike and that it helps facilitate neuromuscular adaptations. Because more force is required, you build strength while you're riding. Does this replace actual strength training for cyclists, though? And perhaps the ultimate question is, does it actually make you a faster cyclist? Now, if you've watched a lot of my videos, you've probably heard me talk about how there isn't one optimal cadence. From this review article on optimal cadence, they stated that it would appear that a single optimal cadence for all cyclists does not exist or indeed a single optimal cadence for an individual cyclist. The cadence at which perceived exertion is minimized would seem to reflect the optimal trade-off between the most metabolically efficient cadence and the most mechanically efficient cadence. Basically, the right cadence for you is the one that you're the most comfortable with. However, the question still remains, could riding at an unnaturally or uncomfortably low cadence in training facilitate adaptations to make you a faster cyclist? Let's jump into some studies that investigate this very question. This study on high versus low cadence training randomized subjects into a high cadence training group, a low cadence training group, and a control group for four weeks. Interestingly enough, both the high cadence group and the low cadence group saw similar improvements in maximal oxygen uptake and power at anaerobic threshold, while the control group did not see these changes. From this study, one might conclude that both low cadence training and high cadence training are beneficial and should be included in your training plan. However, there is a flaw with this study. Cyclists in the control group performed four hours of endurance training a week, while the high and low cadence group performed four hours of training a week plus an additional four hours of cadence specific exercise on an indoor trainer. Yeah, so the control group was literally doing half the volume of the other two groups. It's not really a surprise why they didn't see the same improvement. Fortunately, we have more studies to work with here. This study on low versus high cadence interval training put subjects into a high cadence group and a low cadence group that performed 18 interval training sessions over six weeks. One of their findings was that the high cadence group increased their preferred cadence from 92 to 101 rpm, while the low cadence group remained unchanged. So it seems that riding at a high cadence may actually increase the cadence that you prefer to ride at. Some would say that this is a good thing. But let's stay on track here, which group actually saw an increase in performance? Both groups saw performance improvements, but it was actually the low cadence group that recorded a superior performance measure. They concluded that low cadence interval training may significantly improve time trial results of short duration as a result of an increase in strength development and possible neuromuscular adaptations. This conclusion seems to come up again and again in similar studies. For example, this study on low versus high cadence training had subjects do four weeks of training where they would perform sprint sessions at either a low or high cadence. They found that performance improved more in the low cadence group than the high cadence group and concluded that low cadence interval training is probably more effective than high cadence training in improving performance of well-trained competitive cyclists. This study testing the effect of cadence training on flat and uphill cycling performance also found that higher forces during low cadence intervals are potentially beneficial to improve performance. Of course, this study falls victim to the same issue as the first study in that the control group is not exactly even with the high and low cadence training group. While both the experimental groups performed intervals at either a low or high cadence, the control group performed no intervals, so not exactly an apples to apples comparison. That being said, it does appear from these studies that low cadence intervals are superior when, and this is important, you compare them to high cadence intervals. So if you're going to choose between low and high cadence intervals, you should choose low cadence ones. Yeah, man, that's why I ride a rigid single speed mountain bike. Well, mainly because it just makes me look like a total badass because I can't be bothered with modern suspension or drivetrain technology, but you know, also the cadence thing. Did I mention that my mountain bike just has one gear? But remember that cyclists don't perform best at a low or high cadence, they seem to perform best at their freely chosen cadence, so it may be reasonable to assume that intervals done at your freely chosen cadence are preferable. Luckily, we don't have to assume because we have studies that investigate this. This study on low cadence interval training randomized subjects into a low cadence training group and a freely chosen cadence group. All right, perfect. Now exactly what kind of workouts were the subjects in the low cadence group doing? Twice a week, they would perform five, six minute intervals at a moderate intensity, but pedaling at a cadence of just 40 RPM. The result? No significant effects of the low cadence training on aerobic capacity, cycling performance, power output, cadence, gross efficiency, or leg strength was found. However, the freely chosen cadence group significantly improved VO2 max, VO2 consumption at lactate threshold, and power output at lactate threshold by an average of 10 watts. That's right, in this study, the group that didn't do any low cadence work and just rode at whatever cadence they felt like saw improvements over the group that did do low cadence work, and this isn't the only study coming to this conclusion. This systematic review of a number of different studies on low cadence training concluded that there is presently no strong evidence for a benefit of training at low cadences. Some of the selected studies indicate no clear performance enhancing effect of training at a low cadence or even indicate a superior effect from training at a freely chosen cadence. When you compare low cadence training to training at your freely chosen cadence, it appears that low cadence training loses its edge and in fact may actually be less effective than just riding at your normal cadence. Now, I do want to address the fact that many cyclists use big gear work as a form of on-the-bike strength training as I mentioned earlier, and in this case it makes sense to include it because we know that lifting increases cycling performance. This review on strength training for running and cycling endurance performance found no effect of strength training on VO2 max, but what they did find was a positive effect on exercise economy, anaerobic capacity, lactate threshold, reduced fatigue, and endurance performance. The reason for these improvements? Adaptations within the strength-trained muscles including postponed activation of less efficient type 2 fibers, improved neuromuscular efficiency, conversion of fast-twitch type 2x fibers into more fatigue-resistant type 2a fibers, and improved musculotendinous stiffness. Not too surprisingly, these are some of the same adaptations that Located's training advocates claim are made during big gear work. But is mashing a big gear on your bike the same thing as going to the gym and doing a set of squats? Or more importantly, is it nearly as effective? The closest study we have to answering this question is this one on isokinetic versus weight training on maximal power output. In this study cyclists were split into a weight training group and an isokinetic bicycle training group that trained by performing maximal sprints at a set cadence of 80 rpm. While 80 rpm doesn't seem like a low cadence, remember that these subjects were doing sprints, and sprinting cadence is typically much higher. Doing an all-out max sprint at 80 rpm would feel like mashing for most cyclists. On top of these training interventions, subjects also rode an additional 4-5 hours a week. What they found was that while both groups improved their max power at low cadences, at a high cadence of 120 rpm, which is the cadence that most cyclists would sprint at, the group that did low cadence sprinting saw no improvement while the strength training group did. They also measured knee extension torque and found an improvement only in the weight training group. This is evidence against the argument that low cadence work, even high power short duration low cadence work, is equivalent to strength training on the bike, because it appears that actual strength training was a lot better at improving actual strength. Subjects in the weight training group also increased their power in a 30-minute endurance test by 22 watts while the low cadence group increased by just 14 watts. This was not enough to reach statistical significance, but what it does do is provide evidence against the notion that low cadence work is more effective than getting into the gym for cyclists. In the conclusion of this study, the authors state that using high power isochinetic cycling training at a lower cadence can impair stroke efficiency and thereby reduce the increase in maximal power output during pedaling at a higher cadence. This is a somewhat scary conclusion. Could training at low cadences impair your ability to perform at high cadences? I wouldn't go that far because this is just one study, and the studies that I referenced earlier didn't seem to suggest that. One thing that does seem clear is that weight training and low cadence training are not the same thing. You won't gain nearly as much strength from mashing a big gear on your bike as you will from going to the gym. And more importantly, you won't see the same kind of increase in your power from doing low cadence work as you will from gym work, which in study after study shows improvement. Basically, if you want the benefits of weight training, which every cyclist should, then get in the gym and pick up some actual weights. Studies that compare low cadence training to high cadence training show benefits, but when you compare it to training at your freely chosen cadence, then those benefits seem to disappear or even become detriments. And it isn't too hard to theorize why this might be. Research shows that the cadence that we perform the best at is our freely chosen cadence. So logically, it would make sense that if you're doing intervals at that cadence, you might be able to do them with higher quality. Now we do have to remember that the research here is somewhat limited and there may be scenarios in which doing low cadence drills may be beneficial. For example, a flatlander training for climbs. However, given the evidence that we currently have available to us, I'd say that it's a bit of a stretch to say that low cadence training makes you faster. What's a bit of a stretch is that anyone actually made it this far into this snooze fest of a video. How am I supposed to promote hypergain beast mode to the remaining three people watching? By the way, promo code a drop is a drop. Thanks for watching. If you enjoyed this video, be sure to give it a like, subscribe for weekly science-based cycling videos just like this one and share this video with your cycling friends. I'll see you in the next one.