What's the primary training effect of lowish rpm Tempo workouts?

[germanboxers]

Heading out for a Tempo workout yesterday, I remembered that Carmichael recommended a lower cadence (~75 rpm) for Tempos and was kind of in an adventuresome mood so I tried it. To me it seemed mentally easier to do it at 75 rpm than it usually does at 95rpm...not sure why other than my breathing was much lower than normal. So, what would be the reason for prescribing Tempo workouts with reduced cadence? What physiological change is induced through lower cadence that is not induced at higher, more natural cadences? It seems that it doesn't really hold to the specificity principle when typical cadence is 90 - 100 rpm and it could result in greater muscle soreness / longer recovery, right? My thighs definitely feel more sore today (the day after).

OTOH, the lower cadence did allow me to control my power more effectively, keeping it within a +/- 25w range for 60 minutes, whereas it seems harder for me to keep my power in this tight of a range when doing Tempo at 95 rpm. I think this is why it seemed to be mentally much easier...my power didn't peak and sag like it's prone to at higher cadences.

Thanks,

Jordan

 

[vio765]

Heading out for a Tempo workout yesterday, I remembered that Carmichael recommended a lower cadence (~75 rpm) for Tempos and was kind of in an adventuresome mood so I tried it. To me it seemed mentally easier to do it at 75 rpm than it usually does at 95rpm...not sure why other than my breathing was much lower than normal. So, what would be the reason for prescribing Tempo workouts with reduced cadence? What physiological change is induced through lower cadence that is not induced at higher, more natural cadences? It seems that it doesn't really hold to the specificity principle when typical cadence is 90 - 100 rpm and it could result in greater muscle soreness / longer recovery, right? My thighs definitely feel more sore today (the day after).

OTOH, the lower cadence did allow me to control my power more effectively, keeping it within a +/- 25w range for 60 minutes, whereas it seems harder for me to keep my power in this tight of a range when doing Tempo at 95 rpm. I think this is why it seemed to be mentally much easier...my power didn't peak and sag like it's prone to at higher cadences.

Thanks,

Jordan

i have done this workout before in the past. i use it in conjunction with carmichael's muscletension to bring my gains from the gym to the bike. i tried to get a T workout in once a week for the first few months of base training. the bulk of my gym training is over and im just going to the gym once a week. this is the time i start kicking up the T and MT workouts on the bike. then after a few weeks, ill slow down the T and MT workouts and focus on higher aerobic stuff on the bike, etc, etc.
anyway, the point of T is, in my amateur opinion, is to add a cleaner transition from gains in the gym to the bike.

 

[germanboxers]

Cleaning up responses from a double post of the original.

So, what would be the reason for prescribing Tempo workouts with reduced cadence? What physiological change is induced through lower cadence that is not induced at higher, more natural cadences?

Well you pretty much said it, it takes stress off your lungs and places it on your legs, to focus more on muscular endurance, and yes it will take longer to recover from this type of workout. This is when you want to get all the good carbs in you within 45mins of ridding, to help refill those glycogen stores in your muscles at the fastest possible rate.

I think the idea behind low cadence trainning is to increase the work each legs does on it's own, so for example each leg is pushing 150w each pedal stroke at 70rpm during a FTP workout, where as at 90rpm each leg is only pushing say 110w. (hypothetical figures). Then when you go back to 90rpm pushing that 110w per leg, it feels a little easier and over time you can either maintain that watter longer, or work towards doing 120 or 130w per pedal stroke (per leg) at 90rpm, thus putting out more power.

There is a down side though, this can be hard on the knee's so it's not recommended untill you get a good bit of base miles under your belt. It also takes a bit out of the muscles are requires a bit more recovery, and proper recovery method's.

 

[germanboxers]

I think the idea behind low cadence trainning is to increase the work each legs does on it's own, so for example each leg is pushing 150w each pedal stroke at 70rpm during a FTP workout, where as at 90rpm each leg is only pushing say 110w. (hypothetical figures). Then when you go back to 90rpm pushing that 110w per leg, it feels a little easier and over time you can either maintain that watter longer, or work towards doing 120 or 130w per pedal stroke (per leg) at 90rpm, thus putting out more power.

From A.Coggan's "Training and Racing with Power, an Introduction", I see that the largest physiological adaptation from L3 workout is "Increased Muscle Glycogen Storage", followed closely by "Increased muscle mitochondrial enzymes" and "Interconversion of Fast Twitch Muscle Fibers (type IIb -> type IIa)". It fits my experience that lower cadences seem to drain more muscle glycogen, not sure about improving it's storage though? If true, wouldn't "bonking" enhance glycogen storage??

Just looking at the above three physiological adaptations, I would guess the main reason for using lower cadences would be to enhance "Interconversion of Fast Twitch Muscle Fibers"? Higher muscle tension should require more muscle fiber and if required to maintain this tension aerobically may help in the interconversion from type IIb to type IIa? Ok, I have no idea if that's true, but it's the best I've got without some help from the experts. Anyone know what physiological adaptation is enhanced in greater degree through lower cadence Tempo workouts compared to higher cadence Tempo workouts?

 

[germanboxers]

anyway, the point of T is, in my amateur opinion, is to add a cleaner transition from gains in the gym to the bike.

I may be wrong, but I don't think increased on bike strength is the primary reason for Tempo workouts? That's what's confusing me about Carmichael's prescription for 75rpm Tempo workouts...either he is trying to "mix a little strength with a little aerobic training", which seems to me to be a silly "smorgasboard" approach to a training workout or he has a very specific physiological target for this workout? Anyone know the answer??

 

[acoggan]

Anyone know what physiological adaptation is enhanced in greater degree through lower cadence Tempo workouts compared to higher cadence Tempo workouts?

I'm not convinced that any really are - see:

http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/setraining/

for my reasoning.

To address the question posed in the title of this thread: the primary effect of training at a lower-than-normal cadence will be to improve your ability to generate power at that cadence. So, if you're likely to find yourself in situations in which you must generate a high power when overgeared (e.g., racing offroad), then this form of training may be beneficial. Otherwise, though, I'd say it's a waste of time...

 

[Doublebiker]

Just the other day I stumbled across trainingsplans made for nordic crosscountry skiers. They were prescribed to do "Slow Heavy" training in the beginning of the trainingseason in order to obtain better "economy". Looks like the same idea, but for another reason?

Doublebiker

 

[Krazyderek]

To address the question posed in the title of this thread: the primary effect of training at a lower-than-normal cadence will be to improve your ability to generate power at that cadence. So, if you're likely to find yourself in situations in which you must generate a high power when overgeared (e.g., racing offroad), then this form of training may be beneficial. Otherwise, though, I'd say it's a waste of time...

What about when you're starting a sprint? i tend to drop a gear or two stand up and just start hammering it in usualy with my cadence around 80ish working up to 110 over 15 seconds or so. Of course you can always start in a gear that lets you be in a gear that you can spin at your ideal cadence then shift another gear or two in the middle of sprinting but i've always liked trying to find the right gear, so that i didn't need to mess around with shifting. Also, sprints that lead to a hill finish, you can't win those shifting to an easier gear 100m from the line. Finaly i find i can open up a much better gap in a harder gear, and with some lower cadence trainning that low end torque will be there for these occasions.

 

[WarrenG]

What about when you're starting a sprint? i tend to drop a gear or two stand up and just start hammering it in usualy with my cadence around 80ish working up to 110 over 15 seconds or so. Of course you can always start in a gear that lets you be in a gear that you can spin at your ideal cadence then shift another gear or two in the middle of sprinting but i've always liked trying to find the right gear, so that i didn't need to mess around with shifting. Also, sprints that lead to a hill finish, you can't win those shifting to an easier gear 100m from the line. Finaly i find i can open up a much better gap in a harder gear, and with some lower cadence trainning that low end torque will be there for these occasions.

The benefits are many and include some that you've mentioned, although this type of training is often done at lower than 75 rpm's, often 45-60 rpm's and almost always on a hill. It's helped me alot for several things and you'll find it used by countless pros who ask for it year after year. You can try a search on this forum for "SFR" to find previous comments about this type of training.

 

[germanboxers]

I'm not convinced that any really are - see:

http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/setraining/

for my reasoning.

To address the question posed in the title of this thread: the primary effect of training at a lower-than-normal cadence will be to improve your ability to generate power at that cadence. So, if you're likely to find yourself in situations in which you must generate a high power when overgeared (e.g., racing offroad), then this form of training may be beneficial. Otherwise, though, I'd say it's a waste of time...

Andy, thanks for the reply. I wondered if the low cadence “endurance” workouts were more coaching lore than sound science/physiology and it seems your position lies squarely in the “coaching lore” explanation? I also enjoyed reading your first reference article “Coaching Development and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” [ Brent Rushall]. There seems to be so many “truisms” in cycling, many of which appear contradictory. I’m sure I can speak for many other forum members and say thank you to you and the other physiologists and coaches who post here and work to paint a clearer picture of what constitutes good training.

Andy, I noticed that you referenced the study “High Resistance Interval Training improves 40k Time Trial Performance in Competitive Cyclists” [Amy Taylor-Mason], but only for evidence of no muscular hypotrophy from low cadence work? Did you feel the improvement noted in 40k power/time and VO2max was not statistically significant or that the study was not appropriately controlled?

After performing a few of these low cadence tempo workouts, I notice two things: 1.) lower cadences at steady power outputs are easier for me to maintain for 30+ minutes than the same average power at normal cadences. This probably is mental and related to my early history of power lifting? However, if the power is highly variable (eg. Rolling hills), it seems self-selected cadences are easier for me if average power output is L3 or higher. 2.) my lower body and back are considerably more sore the couple of days after low cadence work. In the past, I would interpret this as a training positive (“no pain, no gain” truism), but now I wonder if this “symptom” indicates any net positive training effect at all? Afterall, if I feel I need longer recovery time after such a workout, even assuming the training effect is similar to a comparable higher cadence workout, the net benefit is negative relative to the higher cadence workout due to the longer recovery needed.

 

[germanboxers]

The benefits are many and include some that you've mentioned, although this type of training is often done at lower than 75 rpm's, often 45-60 rpm's and almost always on a hill. It's helped me alot for several things and you'll find it used by countless pros who ask for it year after year. You can try a search on this forum for "SFR" to find previous comments about this type of training.

Warren, would you expound upon the benefits you see from low cadence workouts? Do you mean benefits primarily in short bursts/sprints or also benefits in sustainable power? Thanks.

 

[acoggan]

The benefits are many

Prove it.

 

[WarrenG]

Warren, would you expound upon the benefits you see from low cadence workouts? Do you mean benefits primarily in short bursts/sprints or also benefits in sustainable power? Thanks.

So that you know what it is I'm doing and why, I do them at 40-50 rpm's with power around my threshold or slightly above-3.0 to 3.3 watts/kg, HR is around "tempo", on a fairly steady hill of around 3-5% grade. Usually 4-7' each, 4-5 rep's. The total duration is increased almost every week.

I'm not trying to get better at riding at low cadence nor am I trying to get better at climbing since my training is focused for track racing and flat criteriums. My coach (http://www.athleticamps.com/cycling/coaching/testa/) is very good at breaking down the various aspects of fitness into their small components and addressing these components in specfic ways. Sometimes it is to get better at a component and sometimes it is to prepare me to train a component later.

The benefits... improved ability to accelerate in races when cadence is below 100. This is quite noticeable during the early season races that have lots of corners where other aspects of my fitness are not well-developed. I can do most accelerations in the saddle (instead of out of the saddle) which helps preserve my sprint for later. I feel stronger in my glutes, lower back and when power during a race is in the ranges around 400 to 700'ish (force is relatively high), mostly when cadence is 100 or so. You could do intervals at 400-700watts instead, to build this strength, but the total duration would be short and would not allow for much of the muscular and tendon development.

During this training, ligaments, tendons, and muscles around the knees and in general in the whole legs are prepared for all the uphill sprints (1200-1700 watts) that I phase in as I phase out this training in the late winter, early spring. Once in awhile in the first few weeks of this training I might feel a slight strain in a ligament here and there but after a month or so those no longer occur and I never encounter such strains during the uphill sprints.

For the last 3 years I've phased this training out by March because my time and energy for training is limited and I need to focus that limited time on other aspects of fitness and get more specific for some others. Guys like Boonen and Bettini include them in their training later than that, much later. Lance, Ullrich and many others will phase them out as they start doing more long climbs in their training. They do this training with much longer reps but at relatively lower power, like 10-40' for each rep with power around, or slightly below threshold, and sometimes while standing.

 

[acoggan]

I wondered if the low cadence “endurance” workouts were more coaching lore

Since no reasonable hypothesis can be put forth as to why they might pay dividends other than increasing your ability to "grind", it sure seems that way to me.

I noticed that you referenced the study “High Resistance Interval Training improves 40k Time Trial Performance in Competitive Cyclists” [Amy Taylor-Mason], but only for evidence of no muscular hypotrophy from low cadence work? Did you feel the improvement noted in 40k power/time and VO2max was not statistically significant or that the study was not appropriately controlled?

Yes, the study was inadequately controlled, to the point that you can't draw any conclusions from it about whether or not "strength endurance" training is better than training at a normal cadence. To do so, the control group would also have had to come to the laboratory and perform supervised intervals, which wasn't done. At the same time, however, the study does show what training at an abnormally low cadence doesn't do, which is induce significant hypertrophy.

As for the statistical significance, it's hard to say, since it wasn't tested in a normal (i.e., commonly accepted) manner.

After performing a few of these low cadence tempo workouts, I notice two things: 1.) lower cadences at steady power outputs are easier for me to maintain for 30+ minutes than the same average power at normal cadences.

Specificity, specificity, specificity...

 

[germanboxers]

Since no reasonable hypothesis can be put forth as to why they might pay dividends other than increasing your ability to "grind", it sure seems that way to me.

Specificity seems hard to get around with you guys!

Yes, the study was inadequately controlled, to the point that you can't draw any conclusions from it about whether or not "strength endurance" training is better than training at a normal cadence. To do so, the control group would also have had to come to the laboratory and perform supervised intervals, which wasn't done. At the same time, however, the study does show what training at an abnormally low cadence doesn't do, which is induce significant hypertrophy.

Thanks, I assumed that something of importance was not properly controlled as the mean + standard error appeared to be statistically significant to me. BTW, does the "placebo effect" and/or motivational components play a role in your conclusions in tests like this? It seems that in this test they offered financial reward to both groups to better their previous tests, so perhaps this is an accepted way to properly motivate both groups? I'm curious if any bias is introduced in the groups by the fact that one is doing an "expermental training routine" and the other just "continue with your normal high intensity training"? I could see that having somewhat of a placebo effect for the experimental group, perhaps giving them greater motivation by expecting greater performance? Maybe I'm in left field on that one?

Specificity, specificity, specificity...

There you go again!!

 

[biketrue]

The benefits... improved ability to accelerate in races when cadence is below 100. This is quite noticeable during the early season races that have lots of corners where other aspects of my fitness are not well-developed. I can do most accelerations in the saddle (instead of out of the saddle) which helps preserve my sprint for later. I feel stronger in my glutes, lower back and when power during a race is in the ranges around 400 to 700'ish (force is relatively high), mostly when cadence is 100 or so. You could do intervals at 400-700watts instead, to build this strength, but the total duration would be short and would not allow for much of the muscular and tendon development.

During this training, ligaments, tendons, and muscles around the knees and in general in the whole legs are prepared for all the uphill sprints (1200-1700 watts) that I phase in as I phase out this training in the late winter, early spring. Once in awhile in the first few weeks of this training I might feel a slight strain in a ligament here and there but after a month or so those no longer occur and I never encounter such strains during the uphill sprints.

In reply to this portion pertaining to the benefits of lower cadence training: I have recently added lower cadence rides to my training and have seen similar results. In years past, I have trained by very conventional means. During this last off season, I began a more stringent weight lifting routine and naturally settled into a lower cadence at the start of this season.

I am always interested in examining the effects of changes in my off-season work as they translate to variations in my riding strengths. My on-road season began in early February, at which time I discontinued any weight training. I have since seen continued muscular strength improvements that I can only attribute to low repetition/ higher power training.

I can see, from previous postings, that this topic has inspired a great deal of thought. I would have left well enough alone, but for the fact that my ability to sprint in the saddle and save a true sprint for later has increased this season as well.

As per recovery, strain effects on the lower back etc. can be neutralized by adding a variety of different abnominal exercises. A change in diet helps to fuel muscles after a hard day, and a well defined sleep routine also aides in recovery. I should add that I use Powerbar recovery drink as well. (Part of the CTS system.)

I may have made an incorrect connection in the relation to lower cadence/ higher power output training, but it does seem interesting to read that someone else has felt the same effect.

 

[WarrenG]

In reply to this portion pertaining to the benefits of lower cadence training: I have recently added lower cadence rides to my training and have seen similar results. In years past, I have trained by very conventional means. During this last off season, I began a more stringent weight lifting routine and naturally settled into a lower cadence at the start of this season.

I am always interested in examining the effects of changes in my off-season work as they translate to variations in my riding strengths. My on-road season began in early February, at which time I discontinued any weight training. I have since seen continued muscular strength improvements that I can only attribute to low repetition/ higher power training.

I can see, from previous postings, that this topic has inspired a great deal of thought. I would have left well enough alone, but for the fact that my ability to sprint in the saddle and save a true sprint for later has increased this season as well.

As per recovery, strain effects on the lower back etc. can be neutralized by adding a variety of different abnominal exercises. A change in diet helps to fuel muscles after a hard day, and a well defined sleep routine also aides in recovery. I should add that I use Powerbar recovery drink as well. (Part of the CTS system.)

I may have made an incorrect connection in the relation to lower cadence/ higher power output training, but it does seem interesting to read that someone else has felt the same effect.

You are by no means alone in that thought. CTS has simply suggested what Carmichael and many, many other pros use during their training. ...For the last 20 years or more, depending on how its defined and/or prescribed.

I forgot to mention that an increase in this training also helped me for 30/30's. The accelerations were quicker and easier this Spring so we raised the power targets for the 30/30's.

 

[acoggan]

In reply to this portion pertaining to the benefits of lower cadence training: I have recently added lower cadence rides to my training and have seen similar results. In years past, I have trained by very conventional means. During this last off season, I began a more stringent weight lifting routine and naturally settled into a lower cadence at the start of this season.

I am always interested in examining the effects of changes in my off-season work as they translate to variations in my riding strengths. My on-road season began in early February, at which time I discontinued any weight training. I have since seen continued muscular strength improvements that I can only attribute to low repetition/ higher power training.

I can see, from previous postings, that this topic has inspired a great deal of thought. I would have left well enough alone, but for the fact that my ability to sprint in the saddle and save a true sprint for later has increased this season as well.

As per recovery, strain effects on the lower back etc. can be neutralized by adding a variety of different abnominal exercises. A change in diet helps to fuel muscles after a hard day, and a well defined sleep routine also aides in recovery. I should add that I use Powerbar recovery drink as well. (Part of the CTS system.)

I may have made an incorrect connection in the relation to lower cadence/ higher power output training, but it does seem interesting to read that someone else has felt the same effect.

"It is difficult to argue with the anecdotal evidence in favor of SE training, primarily because it is just that: anecdotal."

From: http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/setraining/