I’ve been using Forecast AI to prepare for a recreational Gran Fondo event (about 3 hours) on a hilly course - 82km with roughly 1000m of climbing. Over the 4-week plan, I noticed that the high-intensity sessions are mostly focused on high-cadence intervals.
Given the nature of the event, wouldn’t it make more sense to focus on strength-based, low-cadence high-intensity workouts instead? Especially for climbs where torque and sustained power at low cadence are crucial, it seems counterintuitive to train mainly at high RPMs.
Could anyone from the team or community shed light on the rationale behind this cadence emphasis for a mountainous event?
Xert’s Cadence Optimizer shows your preferred natural cadence at torque.
You could implement low-cadence work if you feel you need to but there is no consensus on whether low cadence work really matters.
What % slope range will you be tackling during the event?
The longest climb in the event is 5.47 km at an average of 3.8%, but there are several segments with pitches of 8% or more.
While I’m quite comfortable riding at 85% of FTP around 95 rpm on flatter terrain or moderate climbs, I’m concerned that on those steeper sections, I’ll be forced to ride at much lower cadences—around 70–75 rpm—especially if I want to stay seated and avoid excessive heart rate spikes.
That’s why I was wondering whether it would be beneficial to include some strength-endurance workouts at lower cadence to better simulate that kind of torque demand. I understand the Cadence Optimizer shows my natural preference, but should training always stick to that—even when the event includes conditions outside that comfort zone?
Curious to hear thoughts on how others have approached similar terrain!
I feel this. I’m more of a high cadence spinner and have recently asked myself the same questions.
I was not aware that the EBC/player had customized cadence targets, so maybe I should do more mixed-mode workouts or use the player more.
When I’m climbing outdoors, my natural mid 90’s cadence does drop, but I try to keep it in the low-mid 80s even when I’m fatigued.
I feel like unless a workout specifies a cadence target, that most interval workouts assume you’ll be in the mid 80’s. I then feel that if I’m spinning faster than that, that I then lose out on some of the strength-building aspect of those intervals.
After some experimentation I found that my heart rate reacts almost the same during intervals whether I’m doing a high or lower cadence spin - i.e. difference between 95-105 at x Watts and 82-87 at x Watts. After all, I’m doing the same amount of work over the same amount of time - it just depends on whether I’m producing it based more on pure leg strength or leg + cardio strength.
I decided recently that I am going to do more training, especially intervals, targeting 85 rpms (or using that as a base) even though it’s not my natural cadence. Depending on the goal of an interval workout, I might still do high cadence during the high intensity sections. But if the workout description specifies to keep a consistent cadence, I will try to target the mid 80’s. I’m also trying to target 85 rpms during long zone 2 rides.
It’s just not realistic that on grades 10%+ that I’ll be able to maintain a high cadence, and I feel like I’m lacking strength in that department.
I don’t feel like that was a totally coherent message, but you’re not alone and I think there is a case to be made for training at a lower cadence that is still within a normal range.
Perfect! On the road, I also try to stay around 85 rpm on the steeper climbs — it just feels like the sweet spot between maintaining momentum and not overloading my legs.
I’ll start applying the same strategy in my workouts too, especially during intervals. Thanks for sharing your thoughts