LOW CADENCE TRAINING: MYTH OR SCIENCE-BACKED? | Ask a Cycling Coach Podcast 565

Video topic

• Low cadence / SFR training (“strength to force ratio”): a tactic used by elite cyclists, though the presenter argues that research evidence is mixed and not fully conclusive.
• The episode is hosted by Coach Jonathan Lee (TrainerRoad) and presented by TrainerRoad.

---

TrainerRoad product update: “TrainerRoad AI”

Key claims and feature positioning

• “Trainer Road AI” is described as TrainerRoad’s biggest update ever.
• Reported outcomes from testing:
  • “70% more likely to give you the right workout”
  • Fewer workouts that feel too intense or too easy
  • More power PRs and FTP increases (via testing group + aggregate running data)

How it differs from “AI” used elsewhere

• Claims it fully replaces adaptive training (previously powered by machine learning).
• Uses custom AI models trained from scratch on TrainerRoad’s own cycling dataset.
• Explicitly says it does not rely on large language models (e.g., ChatGPT/Claude/Gemini) or similar API-driven chatbots.
• Criticizes common approaches like:
  • Using an LLM as a coach via an API (may sound convincing but lacks depth over second-by-second training data).
  • Asking an LLM after uploading training history without truly “processing” it deeply for performance optimization.
• Emphasizes the need for verification/checks and balances to prove workouts are genuinely better.

---

SFR / Low cadence training: concept and intended physiological mechanism

Definition / framing

• Origin noted from Italian “salita forza resistenza” (climb strength endurance), discussed today as strength-to-force ratio.
• Practically: low cadence + high torque / high force intervals.

Power mechanics explanation

To hit a fixed power output (example 250 W):

• Low cadence ⇒ higher force required
• High cadence ⇒ lower force required

Muscle recruitment theory (Henman’s size principle)

• As intensity increases, the body recruits larger motor units (fast-twitch) that fatigue faster and are less efficient (more glycolytic demand).
• Presenter’s hypothesis for SFR:
  • Using low intensity but high torque gives a “mixed message,” encouraging the body to rely more on smaller, more efficient slow-twitch fibers (or more slow-twitch characteristics).
• Goal:
  • Greater metabolic efficiency
  • Less fatigue/lactate burden
  • Improved endurance

---

Research review (studies mentioned)

Overall message

• Evidence is mixed, and there is no universal benefit proven.

---

1) Patton et al. (2009)

• 18 male trained cyclists, 4 weeks, 2 sessions/week
• Workout: 5 × 30-second maximal sprints
• Comparison:
  • Low cadence 60–70 RPM
  • High cadence 110–120 RPM
• Results:
  • Low cadence improved peak power (~6%)
  • Threshold power ~ +5.5%
• Proposed mechanism:
  • ~97% increase in testosterone post-session (as an explanation for gains)

---

2) Nimmerichter et al. (2012)

• 18 male cyclists, 4 weeks, 2 sessions/week
• Workout: 6 × 5-minute intervals near respiratory compensation point / threshold
• Comparison:
  • Uphill group low cadence ~60 RPM
  • Flat group higher cadence ~100 RPM
• Results:
  • Low-cadence uphill group improved ~4.4% uphill power
  • Cross-over benefit: flat time trial improved ~1.5%
  • High-cadence group:
    • Improved flats ~2.6%
    • But climbing worsened ~-1.3%
• Presenter notes uncertainty and suggests confounds (e.g., whether test cadenes matched training conditions).

---

3) Habish et al. (reported ~2024; exact year uncertain in subtitles)

• 24 female cyclists (explicitly highlighted)
• 8 weeks, polarized intensity distribution
• Comparison:
  • Low cadence group: 50–70 RPM for sprint + high-intensity intervals
  • Free cadence group: >80 RPM
• Results:
  • VO2max improved more with low cadence: +8.7% vs +4.6%
  • Improvement breakdown: +8.1% vs +3% (as described)
• Interpretation:
  • Gains seemed tied to low cadence paired with high-intensity training

---

4) Christopherson et al. (2014)

• 22 male cyclists, older veteran group (~47 years)
• 12 weeks
• Workout: 5 × 6-minute intervals
• Comparison:
  • Very low cadence ~40 RPM
  • Free cadence control
• Important caveat:
  • Intervals were not all-out; done around 73–82% of HRmax (tempo-ish to high tempo, per presenter).
• Results:
  • No significant improvements for the low-cadence group in VO2max power or leg strength
  • Control group improved ~5.6%
• Presenter speculates confounds:
  • Possible work mismatch (power vs HR matching)
  • Intensity may have been insufficient
  • 40 RPM may be too low (suggesting 50–70 RPM could be more realistic)

---

Systematic review: Hansen & Ronestad

• Reviewed 7 studies
• Conclusion stated:
  • No strong evidence for a universal benefit of low cadence training
  • Contradictions exist (some studies show benefit; others show no effect or prefer free cadence)
• Presenter notes limited sample size (only 7 original studies).

---

Practical guidance / risk management

Risks called out

• Low cadence increases knee forces substantially.

Strong cautions

• Do not do low cadence work if you have knee pain related to:
  • instability, inflammation, or tracking issues
  • examples: patellofemoral pain, IT band pain

TrainerRoad-specific monitoring suggestion

• In workouts/feature set, they advise checking knee tracking during low cadence.
• If glute engagement is weak, consider PT for glute activation.

---

When SFR may be most appropriate (and how pros reportedly use it)

Presenter’s coaching stance vs “pro” usage

• Pros reportedly use low cadence more in the sweet spot / low threshold / threshold-near ranges, not as extreme as 40–60 RPM frequently.
• Typical pro pattern (presenter’s approximation):
  • Cadence more like 40–50 to 70 RPM
  • Intervals often ~8–10 minutes, up to ~12
  • Less often longer than that

Timing in the training year

• Best time suggested: Base phase, especially:
  • early season base
  • after races when returning to base (TrainerRoad sometimes puts athletes back into base to rebuild foundational fitness)

Application method

• For longer intervals (e.g., 20 minutes):
  • do a portion at low cadence (e.g., first/part segments)
  • then return to normal cadence

---

Coaching caution (key emphasis)

• Even if research is suggestive, the presenter is hesitant to prescribe broadly because:
  • it can make it harder to hit power targets at high intensities
  • higher-intensity + additional difficulty can increase injury risk
• Overall rule:
  • Don’t compromise power production to “force” low cadence.

Suggested progression approach

• Start modestly and step down gradually:
  • don’t jump instantly to 40–50 RPM
  • example: 70 → 65 → 60 over weeks
• Maintain stable form:
  • watch knee and hip stability to prevent triggering knee pain.

---

Bottom-line takeaway from the episode

• SFR/low cadence training is not conclusively proven to be universally better.
• Potential benefits described:
  • improved metabolic efficiency
  • possibly improved fatigue resistance
  • psychological/comfort-with-discomfort benefits (described subjectively)
• Use-case priority:
  • It’s marginal gains compared with fundamentals: hitting workout power targets, proper recovery, and correct training volume
• If used:
  • prioritize base phase and sweet spot/threshold-adjacent work
  • with careful risk management and no loss of target power

---

Main speakers / sources

• Coach Jonathan Lee (TrainerRoad) — primary speaker
• TrainerRoad AI team / TrainerRoad product messaging — source for AI update claims
• Cited research authors/studies:
  • Patton et al. (2009)
  • Nimmerichter et al. (2012)
  • Habish et al. (~2024, per presenter)
  • Christopherson et al. (2014)
  • Hansen & Ronestad (systematic review)