The effect of cycling cadence on subsequent 10km running performance in well-trained triathletes

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the effects of different pedalling cadences on the performance of a subsequent 10km treadmill run. Eight male triathletes (age 38.9 ± 15.4 years, body mass 72.2 ± 5.2 kg, and stature 176 ± 6 cm; mean ± SD) completed a maximal cycling test, one isolated run (10km), and then three randomly ordered cycle-run sessions (65 minutes cycling + 10km run). During the cycling bout of the cycle-run sessions, subjects cycled at an intensity corresponding to 70% Pmax while maintaining one of three cadences, corresponding to preferred cadence (PC), PC+15% (fast cadence) and PC-15% (slow cadence). Slow, preferred and fast cadences were 71.8 ± 3.0, 84.5 ± 3.6, and 97.3 ± 4.3 rpm, respectively (mean ± SD). Physiological variables measured during the cycle-run and isolated run sessions were VO2, VE, RER, HR, RPE, and blood lactate. Biomechanical variables measured during the cycle-run and isolated run sessions were running velocity, stride length, stride frequency, and hip and knee angles at foot-strike and toe-off. Running performance times were also recorded. A significant effect of prior cycling exercise was found on 10km running time (p = 0.001) without any cadence effect (p = 0.801, ω(2) = 0.006) (49:58 ± 8:20, 49:09 ± 8:26, 49:28 ± 8:09, and 44:45 ± 6:27 min·s(-1) for the slow, preferred, fast, and isolated run conditions, respectively; mean ± SD). However, during the first 500 m of the run, running velocity was significantly higher after cycling at the preferred and fast cadences than after the slow cadence (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the slow cadence condition was associated with a significantly lower HR (p = 0.012) and VE (p = 0.026) during cycling than in the fast cadence condition. The results confirm the deterioration in running performance completed after the cycling event compared with the isolated run. However, no significant effect of cycling cadence on running performance was observed within the cadence ranges usually used by triathletes. Key PointsCompared with an isolated run, completion of a cycling event impairs the performance of a subsequent run independently of the pedalling cadence.The choice of cadence within triathletes' usual range does not seem to influence the performance of a 10km run.The results reinforce the necessity for triathletes to practice multi-block training in order to simulate the physiological responses experienced by the cycle-run transition.Further research into the effects of cycling cadence on subsequent running performance is required.

Keywords: Bicycling; biomechanics; humans; physiology; running.

Figure 1.

Representation of the 3 cycle-run sessions. TR, Cycle-run transition; BS, blood samples taken; PM, physiological measurements taken (V_E, VO₂, RER, HR, RPE); BM, biomechanical measurements taken (stride length, stride frequency, running velocity, and hip and knee angles at foot strike and toe-off).

Figure 2.

Mean heart rate at each cycling cadence during the cycling bouts of the cycle-run sessions (main effects of cadence and time: p = 0.004 and p < 0.001, respectively). HR was significantly higher at all times in the fast condition compared to the slow condition (p ≤ 0.025).

Figure 3.

Mean V_E at each cycling cadence during the cycling bouts of the cycle-run sessions (main effects of cadence and time: p = 0.026 and p < 0.001, respectively). * Significantly higher V_E in the fast condition compared to slow and preferred conditions (p < 0.05).

Figure 4.

Mean FVO_2max at each cycling cadence during the cycling bouts of the cycle-run sessions (main effect of time, p < 0.001). There was no significant effect of cadence on FVO_2max (p = 0.189).

Figure 5.

Mean heart rate during the running bouts of the cycle-run sessions (main effects of cadence and time: p = 0.009 and p < 0.001, respectively). * Significantly higher HR in the preferred condition compared to the slow condition (p = 0.015). + Significantly higher HR in the preferred condition compared to the slow and fast conditions (p ≤ 0.018).

Figure 6.

Mean running velocity (km·hr^-1) during the running bouts of the cycle-run sessions (main effect of time: p < 0.05). * Significantly lower running velocity in the slow condition compared to the preferred and fast conditions (p < 0.05).