Cycling cadence: low-rpm protocols, results and limits
On this page
What does low cadence mean?
Cadence is the number of pedal revolutions per minute, expressed in rpm. In Hansen and Rønnestad’s review, “low” means below freely chosen cadence at the relevant power. Eighty rpm can be low during maximal effort but not during easy cycling. One number therefore cannot define every low-cadence session.1
“Heavy gear” alone leaves key variables open: power, duration, gradient, cadence and recovery. This page compares identifiable protocols rather than treating them as equivalent versions of one exercise.
Two studies, two different stimuli
| Item | Kristoffersen 2014 | Hebisz 2024 |
|---|---|---|
| Population | 22 trained veteran cyclists; mean age 47 | 26 female cyclists initially, 24 analysed; aged 17–20, trained |
| Duration | 12 weeks | 8 weeks |
| Imposed cadence | 40 rpm | 50–60 rpm during SIT; 60–70 during HIIT |
| Intensity | 73–82% HRmax | Maximal SIT; HIIT at 90–100% Pmax |
| Comparison | Added freely chosen-cadence training | Same polarised program, intervals at freely chosen cadence >80 rpm |
| Result not to generalise | No significant performance or leg-strength improvement in the 40-rpm group | Greater VO₂max and Pmax increases in the low-cadence group |
HRmax is maximal heart rate. In the 2024 study, Pmax is maximal aerobic power determined in the incremental test. 90–100% Pmax does not mean 90–100% FTP. The 2024 sample had at least three years of experience and at least ten weekly training hours. They were not beginners.23
The 2014 protocol
The low-cadence group added two weekly sessions of 5 × 6 minutes at 40 rpm and 73–82% HRmax for twelve weeks. The comparison group added 90 weekly minutes at freely chosen cadence at moderate intensity. The abstract reports no significant low-cadence-group improvement in aerobic capacity, performance, efficiency or leg strength; several measures improved in the freely chosen-cadence group. That is a result for this moderate protocol, not proof that every low-cadence interval is useless.2
The 2024 protocol, with its recoveries
The program repeated a four-day cycle: SIT, HIIT, easy endurance, active recovery. Cadence differed between groups during SIT and HIIT. Intervals were performed uphill at a 6–9% gradient; this was not an isolated test of slow easy pedalling.3
| Session | Studied work | Recovery and context |
|---|---|---|
| SIT | 8 × 30 s in weeks 1–4; 12 in weeks 5–8; sets of 4, maximal efforts | 90 s active between repeats; 25 min active between sets; 50–60 rpm |
| HIIT | 4 × 4 min in weeks 1–4; 6 × 4 min in weeks 5–8; 90–100% Pmax | 8 min active between repeats; 60–70 rpm |
| Endurance | 150 min in the first half; 180 in the second | Intensity close to first ventilatory threshold, VT1 |
| Active recovery | 60 min in the first half; 80 in the second | Power 20% below power at VT1 |
The study also included recovery microcycles with main-session volume halved and daily HRV monitoring, with HIIT intensity adjusted when required by the protocol. Copying only the intense rows removes part of the program actually evaluated. Authors’ reported full session durations, including warm-up, were 80 then 110 minutes for SIT and 85 then 110 for HIIT, not merely the hard-work minutes.3
Illustrative counting example
In the first half, 8 × 30 seconds give four sprint minutes, divided into two sets of four. They were not eight consecutive sprints: the sets were separated by 25 active minutes, in addition to between-repeat recoveries. Similarly, 4 × 4 minutes give 16 hard minutes, not a complete 16-minute session. This explains the counts; it is not a suggestion to add them to your week.
How the conclusions change
The 2017 review, based on seven studies and a search through April 2016, found no strong evidence of benefit and noted very different protocols. The 2021 neuromuscular review, searching through 2020, included thirteen papers but only two on training adaptations: it did not identify a cadence range to favour for neuromuscular performance.14
The 2024 study adds a favourable result in a specific setting. Authors report mean VO₂max increases of 8.7% versus 4.6% and Pmax increases of 8.1% versus 3.0%, for low and freely chosen cadence respectively. The sample remains small, and the authors do not consider it representative of all female cyclists. These are laboratory aerobic measures: they establish neither a race win nor equivalence with heavy gym strength training.3
How to use this information
- Identify the interval type first. Reduced cadence does not tell you whether work is moderate, maximal or aerobically intense.
- Do not treat HRmax, Pmax and FTP as interchangeable scales.
- Assess recoveries, existing volume, experience and safe conditions with whoever guides training. These study loads are not universal recommendations.
- Do not turn the negative 2014 result into a general ban, or the positive 2024 result into a guarantee.
- The table compares research. It does not prescribe exercise through pain or replace individual assessment.
Sources
- Hansen EA, Rønnestad BR. Effects of Cycling Training at Imposed Low Cadences: A Systematic Review, 2017. PubMed, abstract.
- Kristoffersen M et al. Low cadence interval training at moderate intensity does not improve cycling performance in highly trained veteran cyclists, 2014. PubMed, abstract.
- Hebisz R, Hebisz P. Greater improvement in aerobic capacity after a polarized training program including cycling interval training at low cadence (50–70 RPM) than freely chosen cadence (above 80 RPM), 2024. PLOS One. Full text: participants, intervention, results, discussion and limitations.
- Mater A, Clos P, Lepers R. Effect of Cycling Cadence on Neuromuscular Function: A Systematic Review of Acute and Chronic Alterations, 2021. PubMed, abstract.
Sources consulted on 29 October 2026. Research protocols, not individual prescriptions.