Routine Performance Testing

velobob said:

I have two questions - again related to the test protocal.

1) does not the protocol itself have a great deal to do with the accuracy / relevance of the test?

The protocol for CP testing is not say you must complete 3min, 5min, 6min, 20min, etc, it's moreso that the effort for whatever time you used was your *best* effort for that time period and use this to define your power Vs duration curve - this is something you can't do with in CP from the outset since you don't have enough data points to make it accurate. So long as the effort was your best effort for the duration measured, i don't see a problem with it's accuracy or relevance.

velobob said:

2) isn't protocol critical for repeatability?

How is his protocol not repeatable?

Dini77 said:

yeah, well that serves you right for picking such an easy topic to focus on😉

Yeah, I know. And, this is only the tip of the iceberg. I have very little interest in these topics unless I can translate them to on-bike decision making. So, this is not an academic exercise (not to knock academic exercises). This is for real.

Dini77 said:

The protocol for CP testing is not say you must complete 3min, 5min, 6min, 20min, etc, it's moreso that the effort for whatever time you used was your *best* effort for that time period and use this to define your power Vs duration curve - this is something you can't do with in CP from the outset since you don't have enough data points to make it accurate. So long as the effort was your best effort for the duration measured, i don't see a problem with it's accuracy or relevance. How is his protocol not repeatable?

How should I say this. How about, you are 100% on point.😎

whoawhoa said:

IMO, the goal of testing is to separate physiological abilities so that you can find strong and weak points, not to muddy the lines between them even further.

You can test yourself your way if you want to see how well you can do one minute from rest. This is not as relevant for your racing performance as testing yourself in a manner closer to the actual effort during races. During that one minute during a race, vs. from rest, are your ph, lactate, oxygen debt/deficit, etc. levels the same? Do you use the same relative percentage of fast fibers vs. slow fibers from rest as you would during a race? With your test from rest you have removed those factors from the effort.

Do you want to get better at one minute from rest? I can't think of any races like that unless you're really good at the kilo.

And speaking of the kilo, ever notice how poorly kilo racers do during one minute efforts during road events? What does this tell you about the two types of efforts within their contexts and how they should be measured for most relevance?

WarrenG said:

Do you want to get better at one minute from rest? I can't think of any races like that unless you're really good at the kilo.

I think testing and training goals can be different. I do have a test protocol in mind for measuring repeat anaerobic efforts such as repeats of the same test (e.g., 3mins) with finite recovery intensity/durations. My expectation is that my max durations would progressively decrease. My main objective with this further test is not to define the CP curve but rather to test the validity of my anaerobic capacity recovery algorithm (at least for me). I'd actually like to persuade a researcher to test such a protocol because I think we need more data on anaerobic recovery as a function of sub-anaerobic power/duration. It would make for a good paper.

Currently I am experimenting with CP tests and/or max power X duration from Cycling Peaks. Charlie Walsh does something similar and I am trying his method of using peak power for set durations and basing various efforts based on a percentage of the peak power.

My 5min peak power is 297watts. This is from Cycling Peaks and is either the result of a hard race or hilly training ride. It could also come from a 5min all out effort.

Charlie uses a 84% of peak for first week, 87% for 2nd and 90% for 3rd week. In the fourth unloading week you go back to 84% and I also cut the volume of efforts by half.

ie.

week 1 4 X 5min @ 249watts
week 2 4 X 5min @ 258watts
week 3 4 X 5min @ 267watts
week 4 2 X 5min @ 249watts

or

30sec max power is 350watts

week 1 4 X 2min @ 294watts
week 2 4 X 2min @ 304watts
week 3 4 X 2min @ 315watts
week 4 2 X 2min @ 294watts

Been through one mesocycle so far and it's amazing how precise this method this is and by the final effort I am totally spent.

If I get a good ride on the hills or a race on the weekend I expect to see my max increase otherwise I would need to do specific tests.

A similar approach can be used on the track where pursuiters and Kilo riders do all out time trials and training efforts can be based on a percentage of this by adding time to goal lap times.

Hamish Ferguson
Cycling Coach

RapDaddyo said:

I think testing and training goals can be different.

It has been suggested that lab tests done to measure improvement be done with the rider in a well rested (tapered, peaked) state while testing to determine training zones (power or HR) be done without rest to get a more accurate picture.

In my comeback to riding and racing my 2nd ride in 5 years was a lactate threshold/VO2max test I came up with aerobic threshold and anaerobic threshold HR zones of 160-180bpm. For a couple of months it was no problem rolling along at 160bpm and I was riding hills at 180HR with no major problems.

3 months later I was tested again and the test was 2 days after my first race in 7 years. Although my power at various levels was up by 30% my HR zones dropped to 142-162bpm. I had noticed for the 4 weeks before the test that I was finding it harder to maintain 160HR.

Now I train by power and essentially do a "test" every time I race or do a hard hilly ride and wonder if it's a waste to do any further lab tests when I can see at the end of each ride whether I am improving or not.

I know I have been pushing the limits when on a hilly ride on the weekend I went up a climb that I normally ride at 260watts at only 201watts. Interesting to note that I felt a cold coming on the next day and decided to rest and instead of falling into my usual trap of training through and getting sick for 1-2 weeks, a couple of days later am back into normal training. It's nice to be that precise with my own training and with the people I coach.

Hamish Ferguson
Cycling Coach

fergie said:

It's nice to be that precise with my own training and with the people I coach.

Wow! From zero to full power in ~6 months. Awesome, fergie.😄

RapDaddyo said:

Wow! From zero to full power in ~6 months. Awesome, fergie.😄

Helps if they have a power meter. I have been using power to guide me for those that do for a while. Cycling Peaks has been the big boost though.

Even for those without power meters it has made big diferences to how I analayse all training and racing related feedback. I am getting more people to coach with power meters. Will be interesting times!

Hamish Ferguson
Cycling Coach

RapDaddyo said:

FWIW, I have come around to the concept of regular testing to define my Critical Power Curve (ala Monod) rather than just my FT.

FWIW - I used this last year when I was new to the PM and needed something to help me determine how hard to ride a short TT. It worked an absolute treat, getting me within a few seconds of my naturally stronger rivals, whereas normally I'd be someway down the pack.

Now days though, rather than specific testing, I just use MMPs over set time periods (4 week cycles) for various aerobic and anaerobic durations to track progress, since they come from all training, testing and racing, there is usually a rested/motivated/real world data in there somewhere to plug into the CP model. Of course, I check exactly where that particular MMP for that cycle was set. However if I want to be really sure, then yep - do the test at the set durations. This also works for my neuromuscular power as well.

But yes, the CP model is great for providing advance knowledge of what you are likely capable of in various race situations (whether it's a pursuit, a sustained attack or a hillclimb). Of course it is only a guide and I'll also use race day judgement if I feel better or worse than the power output would suggest (e.g. as has happened to me before, in the unusual event that torque zero is out).

Alex Simmons said:

FWIW - I used this last year when I was new to the PM and needed something to help me determine how hard to ride a short TT. It worked an absolute treat, getting me within a few seconds of my naturally stronger rivals, whereas normally I'd be someway down the pack.

Now days though, rather than specific testing, I just use MMPs over set time periods (4 week cycles) for various aerobic and anaerobic durations to track progress, since they come from all training, testing and racing, there is usually a rested/motivated/real world data in there somewhere to plug into the CP model. Of course, I check exactly where that particular MMP for that cycle was set. However if I want to be really sure, then yep - do the test at the set durations. This also works for my neuromuscular power as well.

But yes, the CP model is great for providing advance knowledge of what you are likely capable of in various race situations (whether it's a pursuit, a sustained attack or a hillclimb). Of course it is only a guide and I'll also use race day judgement if I feel better or worse than the power output would suggest (e.g. as has happened to me before, in the unusual event that torque zero is out).

That's interesting. Yes, I think the MMPs in CP are valid for most purposes. I think the specific tests can refine the CP curve, especially for the longer durations, but it's a tradeoff -- what's the value of a slight increase in precision? There is another benefit to having valid CP curve data, not yet realizable with today's on-bike technology, in terms of tracking cumulative anaerobic efforts. When that becomes a reality, this form of testing (rather than just FT testing) may become the norm.

WarrenG said:

You can test yourself your way if you want to see how well you can do one minute from rest. This is not as relevant for your racing performance as testing yourself in a manner closer to the actual effort during races. During that one minute during a race, vs. from rest, are your ph, lactate, oxygen debt/deficit, etc. levels the same? Do you use the same relative percentage of fast fibers vs. slow fibers from rest as you would during a race? With your test from rest you have removed those factors from the effort.

Do you want to get better at one minute from rest? I can't think of any races like that unless you're really good at the kilo.

And speaking of the kilo, ever notice how poorly kilo racers do during one minute efforts during road events? What does this tell you about the two types of efforts within their contexts and how they should be measured for most relevance?

I understand all of your opints, Warren, and agree with all of them except your view on testing.

Example: You choose to do a 4 minute effort at x watts, followed by an all out 1-minute effort (please correct me if I am misunderstanding your test protocol). After several weeks of training, you perform the same test and get higher wattage values for the final minute. How do you know what improved? Did your v02max improve, or did you anaerobic power improve? Either of them would have resulted in the better test, but could have markedly different affects on performance on race day.

"My" Way: I would choose to do 1 and 5-minute efforts, blandly and simply. Then, I have a proxy for my relative capabilities at vo2max and anaerobic power. The ability to produce a high 1-minute power not from rest is basically a function of how hard you were working prior to the effort. So using data from races, it will become apparent what was a limiter: AWC, vo2max, FT, etc.

WarrenG said:

And speaking of the kilo, ever notice how poorly kilo racers do during one minute efforts during road events?

Not really, Ben Kersten cleaned us all up in a long last surge to the finish line in a road race in Mudgee last year. n=1 though 🙂

RapDaddyo said:

There is another benefit to having valid CP curve data, not yet realizable with today's on-bike technology, in terms of tracking cumulative anaerobic efforts. When that becomes a reality, this form of testing (rather than just FT testing) may become the norm.

Something other than some form of instantaneous TSS? An Anaerobic Stress Score (ASS) perhaps? Then we can all work towards getting the biggest ASS.😄

whoawhoa said:

"My" Way: I would choose to do 1 and 5-minute efforts, blandly and simply. Then, I have a proxy for my relative capabilities at vo2max and anaerobic power. The ability to produce a high 1-minute power not from rest is basically a function of how hard you were working prior to the effort. So using data from races, it will become apparent what was a limiter: AWC, vo2max, FT, etc.

I agree with you as to defining these capacities. As I alluded to earlier, I think there is additional value in understanding anaerobic recovery rates, although I wouldn't use WarrenG's approach to understanding this aspect. Rather, I would use a variation of my approach outlined in this thread, but with repeats at the same power and with a very specific recovery power/duration protocol. My focus would be on the progressive decrease in max sustainable duration at the target power (e.g., 180secs, 160secs, 140secs, 130secs).

Alex Simmons said:

Something other than some form of instantaneous TSS? An Anaerobic Stress Score (ASS) perhaps? Then we can all work towards getting the biggest ASS.😄

More along the lines of a running matchbook.

whoawhoa said:

I understand all of your opints, Warren, and agree with all of them except your view on testing.

Example: You choose to do a 4 minute effort at x watts, followed by an all out 1-minute effort (please correct me if I am misunderstanding your test protocol). After several weeks of training, you perform the same test and get higher wattage values for the final minute. How do you know what improved? Did your v02max improve, or did you anaerobic power improve?

What is ironic is that not only that Warren is apparently perfectly happy not knowing the answer to the questions you pose, he advocates spending significant time/money/energy doing laboratory-based tests, the sole purpose of which is to - yes, you guessed it! - to assess various components of fitness contributing to performance.

Warren's position is analogous to saying that a TTer should only be concerned about their speed, but at the same time arguing that they should get a powermeter so that they know their power and spend time in the wind tunnel so that they know their aerodynamic drag...

fergie said:

Currently I am experimenting with CP tests and/or max power X duration from Cycling Peaks. Charlie Walsh does something similar and I am trying his method of using peak power for set durations and basing various efforts based on a percentage of the peak power.

My 5min peak power is 297watts. This is from Cycling Peaks and is either the result of a hard race or hilly training ride. It could also come from a 5min all out effort.

Charlie uses a 84% of peak for first week, 87% for 2nd and 90% for 3rd week. In the fourth unloading week you go back to 84% and I also cut the volume of efforts by half.

ie.

week 1 4 X 5min @ 249watts
week 2 4 X 5min @ 258watts
week 3 4 X 5min @ 267watts
week 4 2 X 5min @ 249watts

(snip)

Been through one mesocycle so far and it's amazing how precise this method this is and by the final effort I am totally spent.

You might be "totally spent" by such a workout, but that's not likely to be true for everyone. For example, in my case 85% of my best 5 min power is only 5 W higher than what I can sustain for a 40 km TT. It would therefore be fairly easy for me to do 4 x 5 min at that power, such that I wouldn't obtain much training benefit from doing so. Indeed, even the power I'd use under this approach during week 3 is less than the power at which I would normally do 6 x 5 min intervals.

acoggan said:

What is ironic is that not only that Warren is apparently perfectly happy not knowing the answer to the questions you pose, he advocates spending significant time/money/energy doing laboratory-based tests, the sole purpose of which is to - yes, you guessed it! - to assess various components of fitness contributing to performance.

Andy, just for a month-kind of like a trial period for yourself, could you please try not to be reckless with your characterizations of what I write or say? You are so far off it's ridiculous and really not indicative of a person who likes to call themselves a "scientist". You can do better, so why not do that?

I have never advocated "spending significant time/money/energy doing laboratory-based tests".

The answer to whoawhoa's comment is simple. If you are trying to evaluate your performance during the 30-60+ second portion then of course you only look at the power during that part. It wouldn't matter if your power had improved for the 4-minute portion because you'll do that portion at a level appropriate for your current fitness.

WarrenG said:

Andy, just for a month-kind of like a trial period for yourself, could you please try not to be reckless with your characterizations of what I write or say?

I think my analogy is dead-on...but I suppose I could always run a poll to see if others feel the same way! 😉

WarrenG said:

I have never advocated "spending significant time/money/energy doing laboratory-based tests".

One word: [censored].

WarrenG said:

The answer to whoawhoa's comment is simple. If you are trying to evaluate your performance during the 30-60+ second portion then of course you only look at the power during that part. It wouldn't matter if your power had improved for the 4-minute portion because you'll do that portion at a level appropriate for your current fitness.

But what if your power was the same during the last 30-60 s even though you were more anaerobically fit simply because you went harder during the first 4 min? Then you'd mistakenly conclude that it was your aerobic performance that had improved, not your anaerobic.

The problem with "race simulation" tests such as you advocate is that it is impossible to simulate all of the million-and-one combinations of surges and efforts that play out during a race. The only time that they are likely to provide a significant benefit is when you know a priori exactly how a particular race is likely to be decided, e.g., due to the nature of the terrain (think hilltop finish). Otherwise, you're better off just breaking things down into their component parts (e.g., neuromuscular power, anaerobic capacity, etc.), then focussing your training appropriately given the general demands of your preferred events and your known strengths and weaknesses. Anything else just muddies the waters.