Skip to content

Study note

The effect of low- vs high-cadence interval training on the freely chosen cadence and performance in endurance-trained cyclists.

PMID 27175601 (2016): endurance, interval — VO₂max, Lactate threshold (study note for endurance athletes).

Updated Jul 22, 2026

Read the study note

Study note • PMID 27175601

The effect of low- vs high-cadence interval training on the freely chosen cadence and performance in endurance-trained cyclists.

Applied physiology, nutrition, and metabolism = Physiologie appliquee, nutrition et metabolisme2016 • DOI 10.1139/apnm-2015-0562

How to use this page

This note summarizes one study record. Check the participants, methods, results, and limitations before applying it to training.

  • Design signal: randomized trial.
  • Population relevance: athlete/trained context.
  • Consistency: single-study evidence.
  • Practical recommendation depends on tolerance, context, and whether it protects training consistency.

ELI5

In plain language

The aim of this study was to determine the effects of high- and low-cadence interval training on the freely chosen cadence (FCC) and performance in endurance-trained cyclists. (randomized trial; trained cyclists).

The abstract doesn’t indicate a clear change in VO₂max, Lactate threshold under the tested conditions. Treat this as a signal, not a guarantee; confirm methods and context in the full paper.

Takeaways

What the abstract suggests

  • Study question: The aim of this study was to determine the effects of high- and low-cadence interval training on the freely chosen cadence (FCC) and performance in endurance-trained cyclists.
  • The abstract doesn’t indicate a clear change in VO₂max, Lactate threshold under the tested conditions.
  • Population: trained cyclists.
  • Protocol cues (title/abstract): 6 weeks.

Protocol

Protocol (as reported)

  • Intervention/exposure: endurance, interval.
  • Dose/time/duration cues in abstract/title: 6 weeks.
  • Outcomes: VO₂max, Lactate threshold.
  • Replication note: abstracts often omit adherence and timing; confirm details before changing training or supplementation.

Fit

Who it may help, and who should be cautious

Who it helps

  • Athletes similar to the study population (trained cyclists) working on endurance.
  • Athletes who can measure VO₂max, Lactate threshold with a repeatable workout or time-trial effort.

Who should be cautious

  • If you have symptoms or conditions that make the intervention risky, get professional guidance.
  • If you’re near race day and can’t safely test, defer the experiment.

Methods

What the study actually did

  • Design: randomized trial.
  • Population: trained cyclists.
  • Outcomes measured: VO₂max, Lactate threshold.
  • Protocol cues mentioned: 6 weeks.
  • Source: PubMed PMID 27175601 (2016) — Applied physiology, nutrition, and metabolism = Physiologie appliquee, nutrition et metabolisme.

Results excerpt

What the abstract reports

The HC group increased their FCC from 92 to 101 r.min(-1) after the intervention (p = 0.01), whereas the LC group remained unchanged (93 r.min(-1)).

Note: excerpts are short; for full context, read the paper.

Limits

Limitations and bias

  • Abstract-only summaries can miss critical details (population, protocol, adherence, and context).
  • Single studies often don’t generalize to your event, history, and training load; treat results as a starting point.
  • If your context differs (elite vs recreational; cycling vs running), adjust expectations and be conservative.
  • This is performance information, not medical advice.

Adaptive AI coach for iPhone

Meet your adaptive AI coach.

Tell your coach what you are training for. It builds the plan, follows the work you complete, and adapts upcoming training when recovery, your schedule, or real life changes.

Keep going

Sources