Routine Performance Testing

acoggan said:

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.

Furthermore, I don't see that such testing would help with establishing the mathematical relationships necessary to model recovery of anaerobic capacity as a function of sub-anaerobic power/duration combinations. So, while such efforts might be good training rides (not saying they are or they aren't), they serve no useful performance testing purpose that I can see.

acoggan said:

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

One word: [censored]. .

Prove it. Specific quotes only please-not more of your reckless characterizations.

acoggan said:

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? .

If you read what I wrote I mentioned that you allow for this change in your performance over the 4 minutes or whatever period you choose to precede the 30-60+ second effort.

acoggan said:

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. .

You can be as specific as you want. Looking at many races being the most specific and your little one minute from rest test being at the other end of the spectrum. My suggestion is much closer to the race effort, and therefore more relevant for evaluating one's ability during the period during a race.

acoggan said:

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.

Yes, good kilo riders are always a threat during one minute periods of hard races... I think I read that in a book somewhere, or maybe it was in a study I found at Pubmed.

WarrenG said:

If you read what I wrote I mentioned that you allow for this change in your performance over the 4 minutes or whatever period you choose to precede the 30-60+ second effort.

So what? You ride at .x% of your 4 minute MP, then do 1 minute max? What does that do, other than help exhaust part of your anaerobic capacity to make your ability in that area less clear?

WarrenG said:

You can be as specific as you want. Looking at many races being the most specific and your little one minute from rest test being at the other end of the spectrum. My suggestion is much closer to the race effort, and therefore more relevant for evaluating one's ability during the period during a race..

A "one minute from rest test" is a lot more specific for finding AWC ability than your protocol.

WarrenG said:

Yes, good kilo riders are always a threat during one minute periods of hard races... I think I read that in a book somewhere, or maybe it was in a study I found at Pubmed.

Well, if they aren't, it's because they weren't putting out near their max 1-minute power. Which means AWC isn't the problem. So the test still serves its purpose, right?

whoawhoa said:

So what? You ride at .x% of your 4 minute MP, then do 1 minute max? What does that do, other than help exhaust part of your anaerobic capacity to make your ability in that area less clear?

I didn't say to use something near your 4' MP. More like your 40'MP. You can choose an intensity that is similar to what you'd usually encounter in your races before a hard 30-60+ second effort. Since you do MTB, it could be something on a climb, then the hard part, or whatever you find yourself concerned with during your races.

In my races we never go hard for one minute from complete rest. There are always other, relevant efforts leading up to that.

whoawhoa said:

A "one minute from rest test" is a lot more specific for finding AWC ability than your protocol.

Call it what you like. Define AWC how you like. Do you want to improve your performance during your races or during a one minute test from rest to see how you're doing as a kilo racer?

whoawhoa said:

Well, if they aren't, it's because they weren't putting out near their max 1-minute power. Which means AWC isn't the problem. So the test still serves its purpose, right?

Forget about your definition of "AWC" for a moment and ask yourself what it is you want to improve, using your racing scenarios for your description.

Good kilo riders tend to do not so well in mass start events because when there is a one minute effort during a mass start race they have to deal with the effects of the efforts preceding that one minute effort, and they're not well-trained to do that. The one minute effort during a race is under many factors/constraints/effects not present during a one minute effort from rest. So, which kind of one-minute effort do you want to get better at?

Similarly, do you want to get better at a 200m sprint from complete rest, or do you want to get better at a 200m sprint at the end of your medium, to hard races? Do you want to get better at 30" climbs from complete rest, or at 30" climbs during your races?

WarrenG said:

Similarly, do you want to get better at a 200m sprint from complete rest, or do you want to get better at a 200m sprint at the end of your medium, to hard races? Do you want to get better at 30" climbs from complete rest, or at 30" climbs during your races?

Extending your logic, do you want to get better at 20min intervals if you are focused on 60min TTs? I guess you would say 20min intervals are not as good as 60min efforts for improving TT performance. Oh, well, I guess a lot of us are wasting our time doing 20min L4 repeats. But, then, many of us aren't coached so we can be excused for our ignorance.😄

[quote="WarrenG"]Good kilo riders tend to do not so well in mass start events because when there is a one minute effort during a mass start race they have to deal with the effects of the efforts preceding that one minute effort, and they're not well-trained to do that. The one minute effort during a race is under many factors/constraints/effects not present during a one minute effort from rest. So, which kind of one-minute effort do you want to get better at?

QUOTE]

I want to get better at the race efforts, obviously. However, just picking out a duration and choosing that for training emphasis ignores a lot. At one extreme, I may want to attack a one-minute stretch of road at the top of a long climb done at FT. On the other hand, I may do a relatively fresh one-minute effort to launch an attack towards the beggining of a crit, or after a long easy period, or whatever. Both are one minute efforts, but they are distinctly different. The point of training anaerobic efforts isn't to get better at all 1-minute efforts, it's to get better at efforts that are highly anaerobic. Therefore, testing should reflect that.

RapDaddyo said:

Extending your logic, do you want to get better at 20min intervals if you are focused on 60min TTs? I guess you would say 20min intervals are not as good as 60min efforts for improving TT performance. Oh, well, I guess a lot of us are wasting our time doing 20min L4 repeats. But, then, many of us aren't coached so we can be excused for our ignorance.😄

You are suggesting something with many differences from what I've suggested.

FWIW, the 4, US Elite TT National Champions and several professional TT champions that my coach has worked with do a variety of efforts and races to improve their 40KTT performance. 2x20's are a minimal part of that preparation, as are 60min TT's. There are more effective ways/protocols to simulate the racing environment while training to improve the rider's various weaknesses in the event, and to address the specific areas targeted for improvement.

whoawhoa said:

I want to get better at the race efforts, obviously. However, just picking out a duration and choosing that for training emphasis ignores a lot. At one extreme, I may want to attack a one-minute stretch of road at the top of a long climb done at FT. On the other hand, I may do a relatively fresh one-minute effort to launch an attack towards the beggining of a crit, or after a long easy period, or whatever.

The point of training anaerobic efforts isn't to get better at all 1-minute efforts, it's to get better at efforts that are highly anaerobic. Therefore, testing should reflect that.

See, we agree. You can test your "highly anaerobic" performance in races and with other tests that reasonably simulate the same thing.

And as you say, "just picking out a duration and choosing that for training emphasis ignores a lot." This is why I've mentioned doing training for that "duration" within a physiological environment similar to what you encounter while doing that duration in races.

Using your example, if you want to get better at a one minute attack after a climb done at FT... This is similar to what I suggested originally. 4 minutes at threshold (I've said previously that I do these on a hill), then the one minute effort. What do you think would be the most relevant (non-racing) test to see if you have improved in this area?

For your criterium attack from a rested state, the one minute attack isn't really the key part is it? It's what you can do after that attack. Training for this type of attack and breakaway should reflect that. If you ride at 300 watts after your attack will you just test yourself at 300watts, or will you test yourself AFTER you have done one minute all-out?

(Actually, you could simulate most of that environment with different efforts that would allow you to do more of the work you're mainly interested at the moment. You could pre-fatigue your fast fibers with sprints or similar, which is good training by itself, then your 300 watt effort would be done with less help from your fast fibers, just like in the race. If you want to also add in the low ph, high lactate, oxygen debit/deficit, etc. factors then you could do that too.)

This thread has drifted a bit into a training thread. I intended it as a performance testing thread. My new protocol has several benefits, some of which I only recently figured out from my work on post-ride match analysis. Specifically, the testing protocol produces these benefits.

1. The protocol enables a complete and accurate Critical Power curve, which can be used to predict max power at any duration (although MPs for very short and very long durations are less reliable)
   
2. The protocol produces a good estimate of FT for training levels
   
3. The protocol enables a complete and (I think) accurate real-time or post-ride analysis of anaerobic efforts (matches), including recovery of anaerobic capacity during sub-anaerobic efforts
   
4. The protocol enables tracking of performance changes (both ways) of three key performance determinants (aerobic, VO2MAX and anaerobic)
   

I think these are important benefits for both training measurement and race performance post-ride analysis and real-time decision-making. Can someone suggest a different (i.e., better) testing protocol that produces these benefits?

RapDaddyo said:

This thread has drifted a bit into a training thread. I intended it as a performance testing thread. My new protocol has several benefits, some of which I only recently figured out from my work on post-ride match analysis. Specifically, the testing protocol produces these benefits.

1. The protocol enables a complete and accurate Critical Power curve, which can be used to predict max power at any duration (although MPs for very short and very long durations are less reliable)
   
2. The protocol produces a good estimate of FT for training levels
   
3. The protocol enables a complete and (I think) accurate real-time or post-ride analysis of anaerobic efforts (matches), including recovery of anaerobic capacity during sub-anaerobic efforts
   
4. The protocol enables tracking of performance changes (both ways) of three key performance determinants (aerobic, VO2MAX and anaerobic)
   

I think these are important benefits for both training measurement and race performance post-ride analysis and real-time decision-making. Can someone suggest a different (i.e., better) testing protocol that produces these benefits?

Hi RD, I understand #1,2,4. But do not really understand how you could achieve #3. Can you please elaborate on it? Would ya use chosen durations from the ride? If yes, how do you figure the recovery of AC from a CP curve?

netscriber said:

Hi RD, I understand #1,2,4. But do not really understand how you could achieve #3. Can you please elaborate on it? Would ya use chosen durations from the ride? If yes, how do you figure the recovery of AC from a CP curve?

You get the usage of AC from the CP curve, after factoring in the half-life. You don't get the recovery of AC from the CP curve, but I don't think it requires testing. It is complex and I haven't seen it done before, but I believe it can be accurately modeled as a two-part function (i.e., AC is made up of two parts which behave differently in terms of recovery), without further testing.

RapDaddyo said:

It is complex and I haven't seen it done before, but I believe it can be accurately modeled as a two-part function (i.e., AC is made up of two parts which behave differently in terms of recovery), without further testing.

Could you elaborate on your model, especially what you mean by AC being "made up by two parts"?

From what I've read, I understand that your AC is largely dependent on the size of your muscle fiber cells' PCr reservoir, so I'm guessing one part of your recovery model is how large your tank is (so to speak; how much PCr you have in stock at rest), and the other how fast you can refill your tank (efficiency of your aerobic and anaerobic energy pathways to create ATP which in turn is used to replenish your PCr reservoir). Am I correct?

Note: one might find it odd that I mention "aerobic and anaerobic energy pathways" w.r.t. replenishing the PCr reservoir. The anaerobic energy pathway I'm referring to here is glycolysis which is already at work well below L5. Just in case someone wonders.

sugaken said:

Could you elaborate on your model, especially what you mean by AC being "made up by two parts"?

From what I've read, I understand that your AC is largely dependent on the size of your muscle fiber cells' PCr reservoir, so I'm guessing one part of your recovery model is how large your tank is (so to speak; how much PCr you have in stock at rest), and the other how fast you can refill your tank (efficiency of your aerobic and anaerobic energy pathways to create ATP which in turn is used to replenish your PCr reservoir). Am I correct?

Note: one might find it odd that I mention "aerobic and anaerobic energy pathways" w.r.t. replenishing the PCr reservoir. The anaerobic energy pathway I'm referring to here is glycolysis which is already at work well below L5. Just in case someone wonders.

I'm not an exercise physiology guru, so I'll point you to a couple of discussion posts on this topic by my favorite guru
cyclingforums.comshowpost.phpOpen ↗ cyclingforums.comshowpost.phpOpen ↗
My goal is to model both the alactacid and lactacid components of anaerobic work capacity. That requires both a definition of the size of each and the recovery rates of each as a function of sub-anaerobic power/duration. Until I can lay my hands on some data, I plan to use data from L5 & L6 repeats (constant power, constant recovery power/duration, max duration for each repeat) for myself and a few other willing subjects such as frenchyge (who has already kindly submitted his ride file). Clearly, anaerobic work capacity doesn't fully recover even after a long duration completely off the bike, as revealed in repeat track pursuits.

I might add that I already have a vehicle for taking advantage of this relationship, so the computer model is sort of sitting there waiting for the algorithm.

One more note. The more race files (mine and others) I look at the more I become convinced that anaerobic work capacity and AWC recovery are very important to understanding race performance. Often, if you look at cumulative NP at critical points in a race, it is well within the cyclist's demonstrated capacity. But, the anaerobic efforts individually and cumulatively explain a lot about what was going on. I think management of such efforts (individually and cumulatively) is one of the great unexplored areas of competitive cycling. You'd be amazed how little data and analysis there are on this topic. I think it could be a doctoral thesis topic. If anybody's interested, I have some technology that would support such research.

RapDaddyo said:

My goal is to model both the alactacid and lactacid components of anaerobic work capacity.

This has to be one of those moments where I regret that I even bothered to open my mouth. I see your model is far advanced than what I can grasp at the moment.

Good luck to your search for the algorithm, and I'm looking forward to seeing you sharing your algorithm when you find it.

Ken

sugaken said:

Good luck to your search for the algorithm, and I'm looking forward to seeing you sharing your algorithm when you find it.

Thanks. Actually, I'm looking forward to seeing a paper published by one of Andy's students entitled, "Anaerobic Work Capacity in Competitive Cycling." One way or the other, you will learn about the results of my work. If it can't be turned into a practical application, I'm not interested. And, if it can be turned into a practical application, I don't plan to keep it to myself.

Its all good RD.

I just wonder that some races will not give great data. I did a 1/2 RR last week and was never near any of my CP values. Meaning, MP curve under my MMP curve.

But I was on the freaking rivet for two hours. I spent 35 minutes in my Z6! But never over my peak. It was an intense rolling course (50 minutes not pedalling over 3h40m) either full on or off. No sustained efforts over 3 minutes. NP is below FT, and my peak 1 hour is 30 watts under FT.

For me, I can be more intense in training but not duration. In racing, I am very cognisant of my matches, and soften the jumps but extend my duration at CP levels.

Spunout said:

But I was on the freaking rivet for two hours. I spent 35 minutes in my Z6! But never over my peak. It was an intense rolling course (50 minutes not pedalling over 3h40m) either full on or off. No sustained efforts over 3 minutes. NP is below FT, and my peak 1 hour is 30 watts under FT.

This is exactly the type of race I'm talking about. On a cumulative NP basis, you were well within your limits at all times. And, no single anaerobic effort (by definition) exceeded your CP curve. But, the cumulative effect of those anaerobic efforts is what interests me. Each of these efforts uses a renewable energy source and a non-renewable (at least in the short term) energy source. Basically, I want a running matchbook number, both to predict when the tank will run dry and to manage efforts to avoid running the tank dry.

RapDaddyo said:

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).

Sorry for jumping in late.

But if you are to test for anaerobic capacity, then why not use shorter duration? 3 minutes, it's a bit long don't you think?

SolarEnergy said:

Sorry for jumping in late.

But if you are to test for anaerobic capacity, then why not use shorter duration? 3 minutes, it's a bit long don't you think?

The purpose is to obtain a valid Critical Power curve. Depending on one's anaerobic capacity, I think the curve can be skewed if the duration is too short. I've only seen discussions on this point, not actual data. The same issue (skewing) suggests that NP should not be used if constant power tests are available as suggested here.
For example, see this post:
cyclingforums.comshowpost.phpOpen ↗

RapDaddyo said:

Basically, I want a running matchbook number, both to predict when the tank will run dry and to manage efforts to avoid running the tank dry.

This might work for your VP strategy in a TT, I can see that.

But in a RR you go as fast as the person in front of you goes until you can't. And if you can go faster, at some time you're going to have to. Manage efforts? It is more like dig deeper than you've ever done, find an extra few matches you never knew you had.