Cadence Paradox in Cycling—Part 2: Theory and Simulation of Maximal Lactate Steady State and Carbohydrate Utilization Dependent on Cycling Cadence

Ralph Beneke,Renate M. Leithäuser
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2023-0428
IF: 4.211
2024-05-17
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
Abstract:Purpose: To develop and evaluate a theory on the frequent observation that cyclists prefer cadences (RPMs) higher than those considered most economical at submaximal exercise intensities via modeling and simulation of its mathematical description. Methods: The theory combines the parabolic power-to-velocity (v) relationship, where v is defined by crank length, RPM-dependent ankle velocity, and gear ratio, RPM effects on the maximal lactate steady state (MLSS), and lactate-dependent carbohydrate oxidation (CHO). It was tested against recent experimental results of 12 healthy male recreational cyclists determining the v-dependent peak oxygen uptake (VO2PEAKv), MLSS (MLSSv), corresponding power output (PMLSSv), oxygen uptake at PMLSSv (VO2MLSSv), and CHOMLSSv-management at 100 versus 50 per minute, respectively. Maximum RPM (RPMMAX) attained at minimized pedal torque was measured. RPM-specific maximum sprint power output (PMAXv) was estimated at RPMs of 100 and 50, respectively. Results: Modeling identified that MLSSv and PMLSSv related to PMAXv (IPMLSSv) promote CHO and that VO2MLSSv related to VO2PEAKv inhibits CHO. It shows that cycling at higher RPM reduces IPMLSSv. It suggests that high cycling RPMs minimize differences in the reliance on CHO at MLSSv between athletes with high versus low RPMMAX. Conclusions: The present theory-guided modeling approach is exclusively based on data routinely measured in high-performance testing. It implies a higher performance reserve above IPMLSSv at higher RPM. Cyclists may prefer high cycling RPMs because they appear to minimize differences in the reliance on CHO at MLSSv between athletes with high versus low RPMMAX.
physiology,sport sciences
What problem does this paper attempt to address?