2008Medicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseRequires access

The Effect of Cycling Cadence on the Cycle-Run Transition in Triathletes

Sharon L. Fitzgerald, Gary A. Sforzo, Thomas Swensen

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

The Effect of Cycling Cadence on the Cycle - Run Transition in Triathletes PURPOSE: This study investigated the effect of deviating from triathletes' preferred cycling cadence (PC) on triathlon cycle-run transition and 10 km run performance. METHODS: Trained triathletes (N = 12) underwent three Olympic-distance cycle-run trials at race pace. The first (baseline) trial established PC, average power output (PO) and 10 km run time. In the second and third trials, administered in a counter-balanced fashion, cadence was increased (HC) or decreased (LC) cadence by 20% from PC during the last 13 km of the 40 km cycling bout; PO was constant across all bouts. Six physiological variables (heart rate (HR), oxygen consumption (VO2), minute ventilation (VE), respiratory exchange ratio (RER), rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and lactate) were measured at four time points during all trials: 27 - 28 km cycle (Time 1), 38 - 40 km cycle (Time 2), 1 - 8 min run (Time 3) and 8 - 10 km run (Time 4). Run time and physiological variables at Times 1 and 4 over the three trials were each analyzed by one-way ANOVA, whereas physiological variables at Times 2 and 3 (cycle-run transition) were analyzed by 3 x 2 (trial x time) ANOVA with repeated measures on both factors. RESULTS: The cycle-run transition, but not run time, was influenced by cadence manipulation. When comparing HC to LC, HC resulted in a smaller change in energy requirements when transitioning from cycling to running. The LC strategy was more energetically efficient than HC during cycling, but resulted in a greater change in energy requirements during the cycle-run transition. Overall, the HC strategy was more physiologically demanding than the LC trial. CONCLUSION: Triathletes may minimize energy usage during cycling by utilizing a lower than preferred cadence prior to running. In contrast, they may minimize the difference in energy usage between the cycling and running bouts, thus minimizing the cycle-run transition, by utilizing a higher than preferred cadence strategy prior to running.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The Effect of Cycling Cadence on the Cycle - Run Transition in Triathletes PURPOSE: This study investigated the effect of deviating from triathletes' preferred cycling cadence (PC) on triathlon cycle-run transition and 10 km run performance. METHODS: Trained triathletes (N = 12) underwent three Olympic-distance cycle-run trials at race pace. The first (baseline) trial established PC, average power output (PO) and 10 km run time. In the second and third trials, administered in a counter-balanced fashion, cadence was increased (HC) or decreased (LC) cadence by 20% from PC during the last 13 km of the 40 km cycling bout; PO was constant across all bouts. Six physiological variables (heart rate (HR), oxygen consumption (VO2), minute ventilation (VE), respiratory exchange ratio (RER), rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and lactate) were measured at four time points during all trials: 27 - 28 km cycle (Time 1), 38 - 40 km cycle (Time 2), 1 - 8 min run (Time 3) and 8 - 10 km run (Time 4). Run time and physiological variables at Times 1 and 4 over the three trials were each analyzed by one-way ANOVA, whereas physiological variables at Times 2 and 3 (cycle-run transition) were analyzed by 3 x 2 (trial x time) ANOVA with repeated measures on both factors. RESULTS: The cycle-run transition, but not run time, was influenced by cadence manipulation. When comparing HC to LC, HC resulted in a smaller change in energy requirements when transitioning from cycling to running. The LC strategy was more energetically efficient than HC during cycling, but resulted in a greater change in energy requirements during the cycle-run transition. Overall, the HC strategy was more physiologically demanding than the LC trial. CONCLUSION: Triathletes may minimize energy usage during cycling by utilizing a lower than preferred cadence prior to running. In contrast, they may minimize the difference in energy usage between the cycling and running bouts, thus minimizing the cycle-run transition, by utilizing a higher than preferred cadence strategy prior to running.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The Effect of Cycling Cadence on the Cycle - Run Transition in Triathletes PURPOSE: This study investigated the effect of deviating from triathletes' preferred cycling cadence (PC) on triathlon cycle-run transition and 10 km run performance. METHODS: Trained triathletes (N = 12) underwent three Olympic-distance cycle-run trials at race pace. The first (baseline) trial established PC, average power output (PO) and 10 km run time. In the second and third trials, administered in a counter-balanced fashion, cadence was increased (HC) or decreased (LC) cadence by 20% from PC during the last 13 km of the 40 km cycling bout; PO was constant across all bouts. Six physiological variables (heart rate (HR), oxygen consumption (VO2), minute ventilation (VE), respiratory exchange ratio (RER), rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and lactate) were measured at four time points during all trials: 27 - 28 km cycle (Time 1), 38 - 40 km cycle (Time 2), 1 - 8 min run (Time 3) and 8 - 10 km run (Time 4). Run time and physiological variables at Times 1 and 4 over the three trials were each analyzed by one-way ANOVA, whereas physiological variables at Times 2 and 3 (cycle-run transition) were analyzed by 3 x 2 (trial x time) ANOVA with repeated measures on both factors. RESULTS: The cycle-run transition, but not run time, was influenced by cadence manipulation. When comparing HC to LC, HC resulted in a smaller change in energy requirements when transitioning from cycling to running. The LC strategy was more energetically efficient than HC during cycling, but resulted in a greater change in energy requirements during the cycle-run transition. Overall, the HC strategy was more physiologically demanding than the LC trial. CONCLUSION: Triathletes may minimize energy usage during cycling by utilizing a lower than preferred cadence prior to running. In contrast, they may minimize the difference in energy usage between the cycling and running bouts, thus minimizing the cycle-run transition, by utilizing a higher than preferred cadence strategy prior to running.

Key concepts: Cadence, Cycling, Time trial, Rating of perceived exertion, Ventilatory threshold, Respiratory exchange ratio, Animal science, Perceived exertion

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Effect of Cycling Cadence on the Cycle-Run Transition in Triathletes — Research Paper | ScholarLens