Carmichael field test

1. Anyone else here using this test? I don't. Doubtful too many here do either.
2. How reliable is this test for estimating LT? Very poor. Test isn't long enough. for estimated LT
3. My average HR was 173 however over the last 5 minutes of each effort my HR was 175-177. The average was lower because of the lag in HR response at the beginning of the test. Should I use the higher or lower numbers? Use a better test.
4. Are there any other field tests you all recommend or use yourself? Friel's or A. Coggan's

Doctor Morbius said:

1. Anyone else here using this test? I don't. Doubtful too many here do either.
2. How reliable is this test for estimating LT? Very poor. Test isn't long enough. for estimated LT
3. My average HR was 173 however over the last 5 minutes of each effort my HR was 175-177. The average was lower because of the lag in HR response at the beginning of the test. Should I use the higher or lower numbers? Use a better test.
4. Are there any other field tests you all recommend or use yourself? Friel's or A. Coggan's

I'd agree there are better ways, but their test isn't as bad as you make it out...

I believe they use a 108% conversion to threshold (SS in their terminology). This test is likely to give an accurate enough set of numbers to start from.

Scott

Doctor Morbius said:

1. Anyone else here using this test? I don't. Doubtful too many here do either.
2. How reliable is this test for estimating LT? Very poor. Test isn't long enough. for estimated LT
3. My average HR was 173 however over the last 5 minutes of each effort my HR was 175-177. The average was lower because of the lag in HR response at the beginning of the test. Should I use the higher or lower numbers? Use a better test.
4. Are there any other field tests you all recommend or use yourself? Friel's or A. Coggan's

Are the protocols for these other tests on-line or can you elaborate on them for me here?

I used to do that test when I was using one of the CTS on-line programs. I agree it doesn't estimate LT directly, and I don't think they claim it's supposed to, due to the different multipliers for determining the HR zones, as stated above. Hoever, I found that the zones I wound up with were very similar to the zones calculated using other protocols (maybe a little on the low side for HR).

Check out Coggan's or Friel's website or book for different testing methods for HR-based training (or search this forum for "HR zones"😉.

jrstevens said:

1. Anyone else here using [the CTS] test?
2. How reliable is this test for estimating LT?
3. My average HR was 173 however over the last 5 minutes of each effort my HR was 175-177. Should I use the higher or lower numbers? James

I use the Carmichael test as a CTS client, and you're not asking the right question. Carmichael uses the power/HR test results to develop training ranges within his own protocol. Therefore whether the result is an accurate "LT test" (you are actually asking is whether it gives a good estimate of FTP - functional threshold power, or in your case HR at FTP) isn't the point, it is whether the ranges it provides work well within CTS's training system, and they do. The CTS test is actually two 3-mile TTs with 10min recovery. CTS specifies using the entire avg HR from the higher of the two TTs, so again, do the math the way CTS specifies, and use CTS's training ranges so that you are using a consistent approach. While my emphasis is to avoid mixing one system's test with another system's calculated ranges, I can say from experience that taking 90% of the CTS test power to approximate FTP (I train by power) you get results that line up quite closely with the Coggan system. So while I train using CTS protocol, the power results map nicely in CyclingPeaksSoftware which uses Coggan's power ranges. (That last comment is more for general readership than the original poster, who trains by HR.)

palewin said:

I use the Carmichael test as a CTS client, and you're not asking the right question. Carmichael uses the power/HR test results to develop training ranges within his own protocol. Therefore whether the result is an accurate "LT test" (you are actually asking is whether it gives a good estimate of FTP - functional threshold power, or in your case HR at FTP) isn't the point, it is whether the ranges it provides work well within CTS's training system, and they do.

*Applause*. That's the right answer. There is no "platonic truth" underlying any of these tests; they're just used to set parameters for each coach's system. Also, the intensity classification schema will have, at most, 7 levels, and more typically 4 or 5. Those are always going to be pretty broad bands, so "close enough" is close enough. Since "testing" usually takes time away from "training" (or at least compromises the training you'd otherwise be doing), it's crazy to pick and choose among four or five different testing protocols. Use the test that's designed for the system you're using, and, as soon as possible, stop worrying about testing and get back to training.

Alternatively, get a power meter, a copy of cycling peaks, and Coggan and Allen's new book, and chant "training is testing" in the mirror five times before you go to bed each night. Like I do. 🙂

Palewin, a quick question, since you're a satisfied and sophisticated CTS client. Back when I was a CTS client, I always had a practical problem with the "3-miles over the same course, w/ 10 minutes recovery" prescription. I can't find 3 miles of pan-flat road without traffic control devices around here, so I settle for some rolling hills. But, how do you get back to the start line in 10 minutes of "recovery"? 3 miles every 10 minutes is (counts on fingers and toes...) 18mph, which in the presence of any sort of wind or hills is considerably over recovery pace for me. I can't be the only person with this problem. Do you have to find, e.g., a four-mile loop?

LOL...yeah, I had the same issue with finding a location for my CTS field tests. I could drive out somewhere to BFE and locate a 10 mile stretch of straight, flat road, but that would not really be a practical thing to do every 10 weeks. So yeah, I went the neighborhood loop route. It too includes some rolling hills but gives me good test data as well as ride characteristics that are easy to consistently duplicate.

kmavm said:

Palewin, a quick question, since you're a satisfied and sophisticated CTS client. Back when I was a CTS client, I always had a practical problem with the "3-miles over the same course, w/ 10 minutes recovery" prescription. I can't find 3 miles of pan-flat road without traffic control devices around here, so I settle for some rolling hills. But, how do you get back to the start line in 10 minutes of "recovery"? 3 miles every 10 minutes is (counts on fingers and toes...) 18mph, which in the presence of any sort of wind or hills is considerably over recovery pace for me. I can't be the only person with this problem. Do you have to find, e.g., a four-mile loop?

I'm lucky with courses, but do have an alternative suggestion. First, the lucky part: I live about 30 riding minutes from the Great Swamp Wildlife Preserve in NJ, which has a flat 3-mile stretch with no stops; the only issue is wind, which I just have to live with. Since it takes me about 7:30-7:45 to do the 3-miles in CTS FT mode (absent 25mph wind gusts!), turning around and retracing gets me back to the start in about 10 minutes (if its 11 minutes, I'm not picky!) But the alternative is to take your course, and do the two 3-mile tests in opposite directions (so you finish TT#1, roll around however you like for 10 minutes, then start at your previous end-point and TT back to your original starting point). Even though your actual TIME for the two legs may be different (assuming that opposite directions aren't symmetrical, if nothing else one could be headwind and the return tailwind) the EFFORTS will probably be similar in terms of HR and/or power. And if there is more of a difference than you like, you can average the results; the main objective of the total test (i.e. the sum of the two 3-mile TTs) is repeatability - so as long as you do it the same way each time, you should be fine. [By the way, thanks for the "applause" and "sophisticated" - after floating an idea out on the internet, its nice to think that once in a while I get it right!]

palewin said:

I'm lucky with courses, but do have an alternative suggestion. First, the lucky part: I live about 30 riding minutes from the Great Swamp Wildlife Preserve in NJ, which has a flat 3-mile stretch with no stops; the only issue is wind, which I just have to live with. Since it takes me about 7:30-7:45 to do the 3-miles in CTS FT mode (absent 25mph wind gusts!), turning around and retracing gets me back to the start in about 10 minutes (if its 11 minutes, I'm not picky!) But the alternative is to take your course, and do the two 3-mile tests in opposite directions (so you finish TT#1, roll around however you like for 10 minutes, then start at your previous end-point and TT back to your original starting point). Even though your actual TIME for the two legs may be different (assuming that opposite directions aren't symmetrical, if nothing else one could be headwind and the return tailwind) the EFFORTS will probably be similar in terms of HR and/or power. And if there is more of a difference than you like, you can average the results; the main objective of the total test (i.e. the sum of the two 3-mile TTs) is repeatability - so as long as you do it the same way each time, you should be fine. [By the way, thanks for the "applause" and "sophisticated" - after floating an idea out on the internet, its nice to think that once in a while I get it right!]

oh no, my recovery time between intervals was 14 minutes due to the same issue the other poster brought up. If I went any faster it wouldn't have been truly recovery. I guess my field test was moot🙄

A local coach once had me do an 10 mile uphill time trial to determine LT. talk about brutal. I prefer the CTS protocol for obvious reasons🙂

BTW, Thanks for the responses. I am using the CTS zones with the higher ave HR from the 2 efforts and will repeat the test in 8-10 weeks.

JS

This is pure horseshit. I live in Carmichael, California, and you can't find 3 miles without a stoplight anywhere in this town. 😄

benkoostra said:

This is pure horseshit. I live in Carmichael, California, and you can't find 3 miles without a stoplight anywhere in this town. 😄

Ever ridden on the bike trail? No lights for 35+ miles. There are plenty of places you can do a 3-mile test with minimal interruptions, especially east of Hazel avenue on the Orangevale side of the lake.

jrstevens said:

I am using the CTS zones with the higher ave HR from the 2 efforts and will repeat the test in 8-10 weeks.

JS

Why do you need to test every 8-10 weeks? Your HR's won't be changing your zones' targets. If you're supposed to do "tempo" intervals at 160-168bpm this month you'll still be doing them at 160-168 four months later. All that changes is how fast you can go during "x" intervals, or how many you can do, or how long you can ride at the upper end of a zone, etc.

kmavm said:

*Applause*.

But, how do you get back to the start line in 10 minutes of "recovery"? 3 miles every 10 minutes is (counts on fingers and toes...) 18mph, which in the presence of any sort of wind or hills is considerably over recovery pace for me. I can't be the only person with this problem. Do you have to find, e.g., a four-mile loop?

the problem is eliminated if you start at the finish and work the route backwards , it is still flat if your going in reverse direction🙂

Personally, I do the test on the trainer indoors as this eliminates all the variables 😉

WarrenG said:

Ever ridden on the bike trail? No lights for 35+ miles. There are plenty of places you can do a 3-mile test with minimal interruptions, especially east of Hazel avenue on the Orangevale side of the lake.

I was making a joke, but thanks for the clarification.

benkoostra said:

I was making a joke, but thanks for the clarification.

Well you're right about Carmichael except for parts of the "Generic Route". And then we have the North River Road on the levee. No lights for 90 minutes of out and back on the most boring terrain around.

MY02_STi said:

Personally, I do the test on the trainer indoors as this eliminates all the variables 😉

I will shortly doing the CTS field test as it least it will give me some baseline to work out a program and work from. I am wanting to use an indoor trainer also as it eliminates many of the previous gripes and is totally repeatable.

In the CTS field test description, the preferance is for measuring distance rather than time. My bike cateye astrale computer will of course measure distance but how accurate will this be using indoor trainer ? ( Elite elastogel mag)

How will distance be accurate when I may use different gearing during the test?

This particular trainer has magnetic resistance and a controller to adjust resistance without getting off bike. I suppose for field test purposes, I simply use the same resistance setting each time to eliminate this variable - just wonder how bike computer take this potential variable into account?

A few other tests have been mentioned ( Friels for one) but I purchased the CTS book so will try this for a start - I don't have power measurement but do have Polar HRM and cadence on the cateye

ChelseaHH said:

I will shortly doing the CTS field test as it least it will give me some baseline to work out a program and work from. I am wanting to use an indoor trainer also as it eliminates many of the previous gripes and is totally repeatable.

In the CTS field test description, the preference is for measuring distance rather than time. My bike cateye astrale computer will of course measure distance but how accurate will this be using indoor trainer ? ( Elite elastogel mag)

How will distance be accurate when I may use different gearing during the test?

This particular trainer has magnetic resistance and a controller to adjust resistance without getting off bike. I suppose for field test purposes, I simply use the same resistance setting each time to eliminate this variable - just wonder how bike computer take this potential variable into account?

A few other tests have been mentioned ( Friels for one) but I purchased the CTS book so will try this for a start - I don't have power measurement but do have Polar HRM and cadence on the cateye

I'm assuming the cateye astrale has the speed/distance pickup on the rear wheel, and as such will be totally accurate and repeatable for the test and will not be dependant upon which gear(s) you use or the resistance level of the trainer you use.

Use the same resistance level each time you do the test 🙂

ChelseaHH said:

I will shortly doing the CTS field test as it least it will give me some baseline to work out a program and work from. I am wanting to use an indoor trainer also as it eliminates many of the previous gripes and is totally repeatable.

In the CTS field test description, the preferance is for measuring distance rather than time. My bike cateye astrale computer will of course measure distance but how accurate will this be using indoor trainer ? ( Elite elastogel mag)

How will distance be accurate when I may use different gearing during the test?

This particular trainer has magnetic resistance and a controller to adjust resistance without getting off bike. I suppose for field test purposes, I simply use the same resistance setting each time to eliminate this variable - just wonder how bike computer take this potential variable into account?

Isn't the point of the test to establish your highest sustainable HR? If that's the case then it doesn't matter what provides the resistance or how repeatable it is. You're just going as hard as you can for a specific period to see what HR you maintain. Also makes no real difference whether you use time or distance, although time would be better indoors if you really wanted to be true to the test protocol. As you imply, the speed on an indoor trainer will not accurately represent your outdoor speed, which means your distance is meaningless also.