↓ Skip to main content

Low cadence interval training at moderate intensity does not improve cycling performance in highly trained veteran cyclists

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
31 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages
video
3 YouTube creators

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Low cadence interval training at moderate intensity does not improve cycling performance in highly trained veteran cyclists
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, January 2014
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2014.00034
Pubmed ID
Authors

Morten Kristoffersen, Hilde Gundersen, Stig Leirdal, Vegard V. Iversen

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of the present study was to investigate effects of low cadence training at moderate intensity on aerobic capacity, cycling performance, gross efficiency, freely chosen cadence, and leg strength in veteran cyclists. Method: Twenty-two well trained veteran cyclists [age: 47 ± 6 years, maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max): 57.9 ± 3.7 ml · kg(-1) · min(-1)] were randomized into two groups, a low cadence training group and a freely chose cadence training group. Respiratory variables, power output, cadence and leg strength were tested before and after a 12 weeks training intervention period. The low cadence training group performed 12 weeks of moderate [73-82% of maximal heart rate (HRmax)] interval training (5 × 6 min) with a cadence of 40 revolutions per min (rpm) two times a week, in addition to their usual training. The freely chosen cadence group added 90 min of training at freely chosen cadence at moderate intensity. Results: No significant effects of the low cadence training on aerobic capacity, cycling performance, power output, cadence, gross efficiency, or leg strength was found. The freely chosen cadence group significantly improved both VO2max (58.9 ± 2.4 vs. 62.2 ± 3.2 ml · kg(-1) · min(-1)), VO2 consumption at lactate threshold (49.4 ± 3.8 vs. 51.8 ± 3.5 ml · kg(-1) · min(-1)) and during the 30 min performance test (52.8 ± 3.0 vs. 54.7 ± 3.5 ml · kg(-1) · min(-1)), and power output at lactate threshold (284 ± 47 vs. 294 ± 48 W) and during the 30 min performance test (284 ± 42 vs. 297 ± 50 W). Moreover, a significant difference was seen when comparing the change in freely chosen cadence from pre- to post between the groups during the 30 min performance test (2.4 ± 5.0 vs. -2.7 ± 6.2). Conclusion: Twelve weeks of low cadence (40 rpm) interval training at moderate intensity (73-82% of HRmax) twice a week does not improve aerobic capacity, cycling performance or leg strength in highly trained veteran cyclists. However, adding training at same intensity (% of HRmax) and duration (90 min weekly) at freely chosen cadence seems beneficial for performance and physiological adaptations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 86 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 16%
Student > Bachelor 14 16%
Researcher 5 6%
Student > Postgraduate 4 5%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 20 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 32 36%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 22 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 April 2024.
All research outputs
#1,131,181
of 25,639,676 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#619
of 15,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,053
of 320,633 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#5
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,639,676 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,711 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,633 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.