SFR (Low cadence) - Goes Mainstream

Training and Performance Fundamentals
1

So as many of you know Andrea Morelli is my friend and partner. Our serious Italian plan and big climbs both suggest low cadence SFR or “strength” workouts. Andrea was Aldo Sassi’s right hand and together they produced world tour winners and SFR (low cadence) has always been one of their key workouts.

Now GCN has done a review of this, and says while limited scientific proof, he still believes it sounds like a good idea to him. He also states pros and pro coaches recommend it. Also he mentions Aldo as a forefather of this.

But he is also pointing out that strength training could be an alternative solution and is more proven.

3 Likes
2

Here’s my 2 cents on this. I just watched the video yesterday. In 2000 when I was in my 20’s and very fit I did just this. I lived just around the corner from Mt Lemmon in Tucson, AZ and would ride up it 2-3 days a week. I was specifically training for the AZ HC championships which back then took place at Mt Graham. I would routinely do 10-15 min intervals at low cadence in the big ring (53x16/17) all the way up to Windy Point (mile marker 14). On the way down I would do high cadence spins at 180-200 + rpm’s. In the lead up to the HC champs I won the Tumacocori RR (hilly circuit) when 3 of us went off the front on the first lap.i went to cover the attack initially since no one else did but after a few laps i was committed and went for it. I ended up being the only one to survive and hold off the field. At the HC champs I rode a 1988 steel specialized Allez with zipp440 wheels. So not a light weight bike. I finished 5th overall. I was 1st in Cat 3 by well over 2 minutes. I would’ve been the 2nd Cat 2 finisher. I don’t recall if there were any pros there or not. When I raced I rode a normal 90rpm range.

I wasn’t big into weight training back then so I can’t say how that would’ve been better or worse. My thought was it was specific on the bike strength training. To me it combined the concepts of specificity and strength training.

For what it’s worth, my degree was in exercise physiology so it’s not like I was coming at this without a scientific background and understanding. I always looked at things from a different perspective and was never afraid to “try something new”

4 Likes
3

I have always been very interested in this topic. All this research saying that it isn’t beneficial, yet so many pro teams with incredible coaches and scientists still have their athletes doing it.

I just saw a recent analysis of Brandon McNulty’s early season training, and he had a high torque session every week, so you know UAE Emirates definitely thinks it is highly beneficial.

Personally I know I definitely feel a benefit, but not in terms of true fitness gains. Instead it is getting the body and legs to “feel” like pedaling and putting down power when torque is higher easier.

To give an analogy, if you are familiar at all with the sport of baseball, you will see when a batter is warming up they sometimes put weights or “donuts” on the end of their bat when taking practice swings. After taking some swings with weight on the end, when they take them off, the bat all of a sudden feels incredibly light, and it gives the batter the perception it is easier to swing the bat and make contact with the ball. Ironically there have been studies that show this actually SLOWS down their swing speed immediately after using the weight, meaning that it actually has a negative physical effect but positive mental effect. Yet still tons of pro baseball players and teams use them, even though the science says it has 0 or even negative effects! Seem similar?

SFR to me is doing the same type of thing to your brain and neural system. You train and get used to pedaling at a very high torque and when you go back to normal cadence even at the same power, your muscles and brain have the perception that it is far easier. And lets face it, perception is reality.

2 Likes
4

Nice post, Alex.

Research is only as limited as the question that the researchers ask.

In this case sfr has continuously been researched compared to strength training and muscle power. The conclusion has, therefore, always been the same: strength training is more efficient to build power in the muscles than sfr.

That doesn’t mean that sfr is useless. It is still a good training to build power and it has other benefits as well. You strengthen tendons, get used to low cadence which is very different from high cadence, because you need a different tension in the body and you can do so while riding your bike.

It is the same discussion as core training. There is no scientific evidence (that I know of :wink:) that supports the idea that you’ll be faster on the bike if you do core training. But that is not the question that you should ask yourself.

I have always recommended sfr to my clients. I hope in the near future scientists will ask the right questions and when they do I’m positive the benefits of SFR will be proven.

Have a great day, Coach Robert

2 Likes
5

Can you provide any proof of that? I don’t believe it :slight_smile: But really we are talking about is it beneficial, not which is better. Weights seem to be proven they can help and SFR is just not proven.

So either people will do weight training or not, and the question is not which is better but does adding SFR help either of those audiences and without any reasonable scientific indicators turning to pros and pro coach recommendations seems like it sways the answer to yes it is likely beneficial. We also have 2 users here that are top in performance that seem to believe it helps them. So that is the most important part of this story… For sure Tanyo is a strong guy / weight lifter so he does weights as well :slight_smile: and still believes it helps him.

1 Like
6

When I answer these questions, I always want to be as exact as I can.
So I just spent 4 hours studying everything I could find on the subject.

You have to understand that science in cycling is complicated. There are so many factors that play a role. Powermeters are relatively new to the sport and training and nutrition are going through major breakthroughs. You just have to look at the last cycling season to see the results of those changes.

Pro cycling is often the playground of science. Sometimes in a good way, sometimes in a bad way. I remember a story from Cadel Evens’ biography about new bikes that where suppose to be cutting edge, but they where so bad that it costed him the gc.

Most studies are not consistent in their set-up. So generally, a study needs to compare two groups and have a control group. A lot of the time the three groups are loaded differently, therefore the result is not valid.

For example: in one study there was a low cadence, a high cadence and a control group. All groups had different training hours, with the control group doing only half the hours of the other groups.

My next point is that most scientific studies are very small. They use 30 elite cyclist or 11 random cyclist. These numbers and there qualifications have an impact on the interpretation of the result. Most of the time we don’t take this into account.

For example: If a study shows that 10 pro sprinters improved their max power with an sfr program, does that imply that 10 amateure Ultra distance cyclist could benefit the same way?

Like you stated, there are plenty riders who improve with sfr as part of there training. It is my opion too that it delivers results.

A hypothsis could well be that it is beneficial for certain riders, while not or limited for others.

So here is what I found.

There is a list of studies that have been done on the matter of low cadence. Most of them found no real benefits. Not to make this post any longer than it needs to be, I’ll list the most important studies.

Ronnestad & Hansen (two big guns in endurance science) did a review study. This is a study where they gather all studies done on the subject. Their conclusion is that there is very little evidene for Low candence training to be effective. Some studies show that it is not effective or even indicate a superior effect in a freely choosen cadence.

The problem I have with this study is that a lot of the studies they are refering too are not very well executed.

But here comes the fun part…

In May 2024 a study was performed if low cadences could produce the same power as weight lifting. The conclusion was that low cadence (40, 60 or 80 rpm) could not produce more than 54% of the maximum power output while weight training.

However, the same group of researchers published a study recently (Sep '24)on squat power versus low cadence. This study has been set-up way better than all previous studies.

There conclusion was that low cadence strength training delivered the same results as a weight training program.

Actually, the low cadence group had better results, but not to a level where it was significant.

Does that mean that you should stop weight training? Absolutely not. There are more benefits to weight training.

But is does show that sfr is beneficial.

I’m trying to arrange an interview with one of the researhers.

To be continued…

4 Likes
7

Do you mind adding the reference?

8

Of course: Off- and On-Bike Resistance Training in Cyclists: A Randomized Controlled Trial - PubMed

1 Like
9

That’s a very interesting study but if I understand it correctly, I would not call this SFR I would call this weight lifting on the bike. The whole idea of what they are proposing is confusing.

This is what they say

“with all RT-related variables (number of sessions, sets, and repetitions, duration of recovery periods, and relative loads [70% of one-repetition maximum]) matched between the two groups.”

To me that means that the amount of force applied to the pedals is the same as the amount of force applied to the bar. This also means that they are doing about 12-15 reps per set, vs SFR is doing about 180 or more reps per set at much lower force. So this is not SFR if I am reading this correctly

I don’t even see how it is possible to apply that much force on a bike, nor how can you possibly take a rest on the bike when producing that much force.

  1. 90kg guy that squats 100kg on the bar produces about 1300nm of force
  2. 1200w @ 100rpm = 650nm of force but for 1 leg so similar

And weight lifting has negatives and pedaling does not… And you do 1 complete pedal rotation then take a 2 second rest and do one more… I need to see a video of this :slight_smile:

Maybe I am confused in what they are saying but this is three different things

  1. Strength (this study 12-15 reps)
  2. Strength Endurance (SFR, 200 rep sets low rpm)
  3. Endurance (thousands of reps…)

This is more like big gear starts for a couple seconds. It’s still very interesting and I like the study overall, I just wish they would share a few more details.

2 Likes
10

Yes, you are absolutely right. This is a different low-cadence strength workout than the ones you and I use.

As I said before, one of the problems with research is what questions the researchers ask. In this case, they were after a one-on-one comparison.

And in your calculation, you forgot to account for the body weight of the person who squats. Let’s leave out the legs (roughly 38% of the body) and take an average person/ cyclist of 80 kg, squatting the same weight. That would take him 1779nm.

In my workouts I use the sfr with a slightly higher cadence, but a shorter duration and a slightly higher power, but not like this.

In this workout you keep training to failure like you would in the gym.

We use sfr as a build up of strength. The workout from the study is not one I would recommend for rookies or to start your new season.

Still, the results are impressive. That is why I requested an interview with the researchers. I really want to know more.

It might be good to know that most low-cadence studies are done differently, which makes it impossible to compare and is probably one of the reasons why the results are inconclusive.

They range from 40 rpm on a big gear to all-out sprinting at 80 rpm.

1 Like
11

I used GPT for calculating with human weight but did not review but you are right about 1700nm.

1 Like
12

Oh wait I just checked again. I assumed 2 seconds to lift the weight and if it takes 2 seconds it’s 1300nm… :slight_smile:

1 Like
13

Yep. Physiotherapist here.

Core muscle training is religiously advocated by so many “guru experts” - as a cure-all or way to improve so many musculoskeletal conditions and sports / activities.

Sure - it’s ok to strengthen abs and back / trunk etc. from time to time, as part of a regular general fitness program or lifestyle.

However, few scientifically rigorous studies clearly prove all the so-called benefits, transfers and extrapolations that many gurus would have you believe re. core training.

14

I love seeing different educated views on this stuff. I think in the cycling world Mark Rippetoe (heavy strength guy) would not be so popular to follow but he makes a good point that a guy that can squat 300kg has a stronger core than a guy that can squat 100kg, 99% of the time even though the first guy does not do any core work. 300kg squat guy surely has a stronger core than cyclists that do core work. Rip said it a bit different but that was his basic idea. He always is talking about low bar squat which is different than high bar.

So this seems to be along the lines of what you are suggesting, is that you want a core that supports your needs but there are many ways to skin that cat. I do believe desk jockey cyclists that don’t do anything else are at risk for back/core related issues but you seem to be suggesting the same, just do something so your imbalances are not too great.

2 Likes
15

I also asked ChatGPT what it thinks about your suggestion and it seemed to agree (more agree than disagree). “Some experts argue that the importance of core training can be overstated.”

The question it posed was what would suggest doing? Or my question would be what does a focused/dedicated cyclists year look like to you in very basic terms from your perspective. I am sure it depends on a multitude of factors like what do they like to do… At the most basic level I expect a balanced amount of walking can likely round out cycling imbalances at some level.

2 Likes
16

The reason why I stimulate people to do other things than cycling is primarely bone health and good posture.

I love cycling, but I think there aren’t many sports that mess up a good posture as cycling does.

It has been proven that dynamic resistance training like cycling (or swimming) progress osteoporoses.

Bike training on the road keeps you seated in terrible position for hours on end.

Finally, I’m a big believer in a multidiscipline approach. More experience in moving your body will give you a lot of benefits and keep your mind and body young.

You can see this even as a trend in the current pro peloton. Many riders are excelling in different disciplines on and of the bike.

But, and this is crucial, only do the things you like. If my clients say they hate weight training, I’ll tell them not do that. They won’t stik with it anyway.

Have fun, Coach Robert

17

I like the basic message but you should change the word “proven” to something more accurate. I would say there are many studies that show the opposite so if one showed this connection that is far from proven. Ask GPT, it will give you the wider body of evidence in most cases.

I think I can say with a clear concious that nothing has been proven in the world of exercise and diet and rarely is their even strong correlation without a different study showing the opposite or no-correlation at least.

Still I fully agree cycling without something to balance it out is risky.

1 Like
18

You are absolutely right. It is not a duplicated study with a lot of subjects yet.

19

My N=1 input. My winter training has always incorporated using a single speed MTB in the local very hilly area. I start on an easy rear cog and every two weeks or so go down one tooth until at the end of winter I’m riding a cog that would have been impossible at the beginning. I see this as complementary to other training. I’ve found it to be helpful and my WKO data backs it up in the N=1 scenario. The motivation is high. I either grind it out or fall over!

1 Like
20

That is cool!!! Yes, need to zip tie your shoes to the pedals… nice. I love old school approaches to problems like this but just curious do you have cadence data on this? Does this result in a significant reduction and RPM from the start of winter to the end as well or just going faster?

1 Like