Testing, testing, is there anything useful there?
It’s hard to argue against the benefits of testing in the performance enhancement process. But as with benefits in any process, there is an inherent cost to unlock the benefits. So, how much are you willing to spend, how often and how are you going to use the information testing provides?
Reasons to test
Before considering the above, lets re-hash some valuable reasons to actually perform testing, I’m sure there are many others – please comment on your favourite if I’ve missed any.
· Establishing a starting fitness / performance level
· Benchmarking fitness / performance against some sort of population data
· Feeding a model to use in training prescription
· Readiness for competition
· Readiness for return to training post-injury, with ultimate aim of return to competition
· Quantification of the effects of a training program
· Confidence building in your athlete
Things to consider when choosing a test
The number one thing for me when choosing a test is
“Will the results of this test enhance the training process?”
If the answer to that question is no, don’t know, or maybe then think again about testing.
To test your athlete requires energy, so testing becomes an “instead of” rather than an “in addition to” normal training. You have to get a solid return on your athlete’s energy investment – otherwise don’t bother.
The test you choose should be both reliable and valid – these are not the same thing. In my day job when I’m not coaching, we measure, investigate and apply these qualities on a daily basis – they are critical, yet poorly understood. Without diving into the weeds too much, reliable means if you do the same thing you should expect a very similar result, valid means the test actually tests what you think it does. To go a little deeper, the laboratory test for maximal aerobic capacity (VO2peak or VO2max) is reliable when performed on a good quality gas analysis system (you need to accurately measure the oxygen and carbon dioxide consumption and production respectively), but is not a performance test per se. There are no medals given to, or races won, by the person with the highest VO2max.
So, what to test?
Remember, the test must enhance the training process. From a physiological perspective, the training process is designed to enhance capacity or capacity that underpins performance. So, test the capacity, and/or test the performance that matters from both a training and competition perspective.
Some coaches prescribe training almost solely based on FTP, some on critical power and depending on the athlete and session, that can cover most bases. From my first blog you will understand that I believe the capacity to accelerate and thus generate high power over a range of durations is an important component in winning bike races. It should come as no surprise that I favour testing across a wide range of durations, and therefore powers.
A great test that covers many of the qualities I need to quantify in riders is the Power Profile Test, developed by Dr Marc Quod in his PhD and published in the International Journal of Sports Medicine in 2010.
In essence, the Power Profile test contains multiple maximal efforts across a wide range of durations with recovery between efforts. Specifically, the Power Profile test has efforts of 6, 6, 15, 30, 60, 240 and 600 seconds, with recovery between them of 54, 174, 225, 330, 480 and 600 seconds respectively. You will need to familiarise yourself to this test – those short efforts take some getting used to.
The Power Profile test is really multiple tests in one. It requires one test session only, but establishes maximum mean power across each effort duration. In addition the 60, 240 and 600 second power can be used to establish critical power and W Prime (W’). Be warned though, this test has a bite – if you’re like me and lean more to the anaerobic end of the spectrum, you will be able to seriously hurt yourself in some of the early efforts – and you’re looking at a TSS of around 123 for the session.
When to test.
Deciding when to test is dependent on why you are testing. I like to test a new athlete, set some benchmarks and start to get a handle on relative strengths and things to work on. I also like to repeat testing periodically during a training year – usually at key transition points in a program – for example shifting from a base to build up phase.
The ultimate test?
Of course there is another option for testing – especially in this age of ubiquitous power meters. It is possible to perform testing in races, but what you gain in ecological validity (how valid a test is to the environment that it will be used in) you lose some control. Nevertheless, if you are going “all-in” up a climb, or establishing a break, solo or otherwise, your efforts can be compared to existing data. During the competitive season (for those of you racing almost exclusively on Zwift the notion of a season will be an interesting one….) it is difficult to program in testing – as it may well be race, recover, train a little, repeat for months on end. Races therefore offer a good opportunity to test your current capacity.
Testing is critical in the training process when designed as part of that process. Designing in the time, space for effort, and a mechanism for results to feed back into the program are crucial.