FWIW, I have come around to the concept of regular testing to define my Critical Power Curve (ala Monod) rather than just my FT. It gets a bit complex, but what drives my new approach is the recognition that two distinctly different capacities determine race performance (both mass start and TT events). These are of course aerobic and anaerobic capacities. I'm ignoring neuromuscular capacity for the moment, not because it is not important in determining race performance but because I don't really manage neuromuscular capacity during a race. It is what it is, but I use it once and when I use it I don't have the luxury of managing its use - I have to go with the situation at hand as the sprint unfolds. But, I can (and do) manage my use of the other two capacities during a race to my advantage. In fact, soon I will be able to manage these resources with extreme precision and real-time.
I'm still tinkering with the specific power/duration combinations to use for my regular testing, but at the moment I am planning to use 3, 6 and 30 mins. I think the 3 & 6 min durations capture the short end of the spectrum and the 30min test is a good duration for the long end (although the 30min test is the most flexible and can be anywhere from ~15-60 mins, depending on circumstances). Then, I have a complete CP curve and can predict with reasonable accuracy my MP at any duration (although it is less reliable for very short (e.g., <1min) and long (e.g., >180mins) durations. One of the advantages of this approach is that I don't have to accurately guess my MP for the duration. I pick a target power and then ride at that power (constant power) until I can't hold the power any longer no matter how hard I try. I then record the actual duration. So, it doesn't really matter whether I hold the 180sec test for exactly 180 seconds. I use the exact duration in the CP curve, whatever it is. The same holds for the other durations. Rest and motivation do matter, but I'm thinking I can do all three of these tests on the same ride in a progressive sequence (short to long) with sufficient recovery after each of the first two tests (e.g., recovery duration = 3x high-intensity effort duration).
FWIW, I have come around to the concept of regular testing to define my Critical Power Curve (ala Monod) rather than just my FT. It gets a bit complex, but what drives my new approach is the recognition that two distinctly different capacities determine race performance (both mass start and TT events). These are of course aerobic and anaerobic capacities. I'm ignoring neuromuscular capacity for the moment, not because it is not important in determining race performance but because I don't really manage neuromuscular capacity during a race. It is what it is, but I use it once and when I use it I don't have the luxury of managing its use - I have to go with the situation at hand as the sprint unfolds. But, I can (and do) manage my use of the other two capacities during a race to my advantage. In fact, soon I will be able to manage these resources with extreme precision and real-time.
I'm still tinkering with the specific power/duration combinations to use for my regular testing, but at the moment I am planning to use 3, 6 and 30 mins. I think the 3 & 6 min durations capture the short end of the spectrum and the 30min test is a good duration for the long end (although the 30min test is the most flexible and can be anywhere from ~15-60 mins, depending on circumstances). Then, I have a complete CP curve and can predict with reasonable accuracy my MP at any duration (although it is less reliable for very short (e.g., <1min) and long (e.g., >180mins) durations. One of the advantages of this approach is that I don't have to accurately guess my MP for the duration. I pick a target power and then ride at that power (constant power) until I can't hold the power any longer no matter how hard I try. I then record the actual duration. So, it doesn't really matter whether I hold the 180sec test for exactly 180 seconds. I use the exact duration in the CP curve, whatever it is. The same holds for the other durations. Rest and motivation do matter, but I'm thinking I can do all three of these tests on the same ride in a progressive sequence (short to long) with sufficient recovery after each of the first two tests (e.g., recovery duration = 3x high-intensity effort duration).
I Think this is a good idea. If you use Cyclingpeak Software, you could use a "Mean Maximal Power Curve" with the data range of only one day und you get a nice curve of your best Power/ time.
I Think this is a good idea. If you use Cyclingpeak Software, you could use a "Mean Maximal Power Curve" with the data range of only one day und you get a nice curve of your best Power/ time.
Chris
Yes, you could do that, or use a MMP Curve (AP or NP) for a longer period of time and cherry pick specific durations. But, the approach outlined above can be done on Day 1 with no historical data. The approach outlined above addresses two fundamental problems with testing. One problem is the lack of relevant historical power data. This could be because one just got a PM or it could be because one's fitness has changed significantly (up or down) and the historical data are no longer relevant. The second problem is that of correctly guessing the power at which to ride an FT test (or test of any duration). What do you do if you finish a 60min test and at the end you feel that you could have ridden it at a bit higher power? What do you do if you guessed too high and you can't maintain the target power for an hour? You end up guessing a fudge factor to get a valid FT. My new approach (at least new to me) exploits the CP curve to predict MPs at any duration, subject to valid performance test data. So, all that matters is that I am sufficiently rested and motivated to ride at my three power targets for the maximum duration.
what would be your specific test protocol? warm up procedure? number of intervals at each duration + rest between intervals?
Pretty simple, really. I'd start with a warmup of ~5-10 mins at ~150W. Then I'd do the first high-intensity effort (e.g., 3mins) at my pre-determined target power as a constant power effort until I just could not maintain the target power any longer. Basically, a ride to unpreventable power loss. In my case, I have a pretty good idea what the power target is, but if I had just bought my PM I would take a guess at my FT and then ride the 3min effort at ~130%FT. I'd then ride at a recovery power (e.g., 125W) for ~10mins and do the same thing for the ~6min effort. If I had no valid historical data, I would use 120% of my guesstimated FT. Again, I would hold the power until I couldn't hold it any longer no matter how much I concentrated. Following the second effort, I would ride at ~125W for ~20 mins and start the longest duration effort. Depending on how much time I had and other circumstances (e.g., course and wind), I would pick a target power anywhere from 100%FT to 110%FT. Again, I would ride at the target power until I could no longer maintain the target power no matter how determined I was. Then, I would cool down and that's it. Depending on available time, I could do all three tests in anywhere from 1-2 hours. I would use the interval function on my PT to mark the start/end of each effort, although it would be pretty obvious from the ride file. The main point is that there is value to having a good estimate of one's complete CP curve in addition to FT.
If I read your previous post correctly, wouldn't the correct protocol be "ride at some power (eg. ~130% FT) for as long as possible until power drops (eg. <128% FT)?" It may be a 3 min test or, as in my case, it may be longer than 5 minutes.
If I read your previous post correctly, wouldn't the correct protocol be "ride at some power (eg. ~130% FT) for as long as possible until power drops (eg. <128% FT)?" It may be a 3 min test or, as in my case, it may be longer than 5 minutes.
You read it correctly. It's just that the power targets are not randomly chosen or selected based on FT but rather chosen to result in an effort of a targeted duration. I would simply pick power targets designed to give me MP/duration observations at ~3, ~6 and anywhere from ~15 to ~60 mins. The specific targets as a function of FT (e.g., 130%FT or 135%FT or 140%FT for the 3min duration) would be driven by one's anaerobic capacity which is the primary determinant of the shorter MPs.
When you are racing, how often do you get to do an "anaerobic capacity" effort starting from rested? So why would you test yourself that way? I'd rather test myself doing something like, 4 minutes at threshold and then measure power during the following 30-60 seconds. Or 3-4 minutes at threshold then 30 seconds at 50-100 watts higher, then immediately repeat the sequence once and take your data from the second set..
I suppose you could just look at weekly race performances to measure progress...
When you are racing, how often do you get to do an "anaerobic capacity" effort starting from rested? So why would you test yourself that way?
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.
When you are racing, how often do you get to do an "anaerobic capacity" effort starting from rested? So why would you test yourself that way? I'd rather test myself doing something like, 4 minutes at threshold and then measure power during the following 30-60 seconds. Or 3-4 minutes at threshold then 30 seconds at 50-100 watts higher, then immediately repeat the sequence once and take your data from the second set..
I suppose you could just look at weekly race performances to measure progress...
Anaerobic capacity is the most interesting resource for racing, and the most challenging to measure and manage, IMO. The initial capacity (one's initial matchbook size) is relatively easy to define and track usage of. More difficult is the recovery factor, given that there are two parts to anaerobic capacity and they recover at very different recovery rates. Challenging, but not impossible. Basically, I think all resources can be quantified and measured continuously.
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.
The goal of testing is two-fold: (1) track progress over time and (2) manage the resource real-time. If you don't know the size of the resource you are managing, how can you manage it?
The goal of testing is two-fold: (1) track progress over time and (2) manage the resource real-time. If you don't know the size of the resource you are managing, how can you manage it?
Agree on (1), but not sure if the goal of testing is to 'manage' the resource. The protocol you mentioned is to set a target power and basically ride at that constant power to fatigue for a given approx duration - how is this managing the resource?
I think what you said afterwards (ie "size of resource"😉 is more likely goal (2)
Agree on (1), but not sure if the goal of testing is to 'manage' the resource. The protocol you mentioned is to set a target power and basically ride at that constant power to fatigue for a given approx duration - how is this managing the resource?
I think what you said afterwards (ie "size of resource"😉 is more likely goal (2)
Pretty sure he means managing the resource after testing, e.g., using that data during training or racing.
Agree on (1), but not sure if the goal of testing is to 'manage' the resource. The protocol you mentioned is to set a target power and basically ride at that constant power to fatigue for a given approx duration - how is this managing the resource?
I think what you said afterwards (ie "size of resource"😉 is more likely goal (2)
To manage my anaerobic capacity, I need to know three things. (1) the original size of the resource and (2) the utilization rate when I am riding at an intensity that uses the resource and (3) the recovery rate when I am riding at an intensity that allows recovery of the resource. Testing provides the answer to (1) as well as allowing me to track progress over time. Therefore, the same test serves two purposes. I can improve it without knowing how big it is, but I can't manage it without knowing how big it is.
Sorry - took the statement a bit too literally. :o
No problem. I think that power management, especially management of our anaerobic capacity, is absolutely huge for all forms of racing. This topic will be turned on its head in the coming months. What's funny is that most people have no clue what I'm talking about. Oh, well, sometimes I'm not even sure.😄
No problem. I think that power management, especially management of our anaerobic capacity, is absolutely huge for all forms of racing. This topic will be turned on its head in the coming months. What's funny is that most people have no clue what I'm talking about. Oh, well, sometimes I'm not even sure.😄
yeah, well that serves you right for picking such an easy topic to focus on😉
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?
2) isn't protocol critical for repeatability?
I am all for theory but what I need to know is how the rubber hits the road (so to speak!)
All power testing protocols (excluding invasive lab testing) assume 2 things: (1) that the athlete is well rested and (2) that the athlete is highly motivated. So, the reliability of the data are affected by those two factors in the same way that other tests (e.g., FT, MAP) are affected. As to repeatability, the durations do not have to be precisely the same from test to test. IOW, one week the durations could be 180/360/1200 secs and the next week the durations could be 200/400/1800 secs. This performance testing strategy rests on the robustness of the Critical Power Model, a mathematical relationship between MP and duration. I believe the CP Model is robust if one chooses the durations with some care. What's important is that one can exploit the entire test data set for both tracking and performance management purposes. FT alone is not sufficient, due to the high variability in anaerobic capacity from athlete to athlete.
