Over the previous few weeks, many professional racers and their coaches have been busy testing within the lab. This early-season testing is a mainstay on the high degree of the game. It helps coaches perceive their athletes’ health profiles and to set coaching depth targets and priorities. But health testing isn’t only for execs. It will be useful for cyclists of all skills – and on this characteristic we’ll discover the home-based testing protocols that you could undertake for a fraction of the price of lab testing.
As a coach, I usually have athletes use home-based testing as a result of it may be carried out extra commonly, and likewise supplies necessary knowledge on precise efficiency versus physiological metrics resembling VO2 max, which don’t all the time predict real-world efficiency. In this characteristic, we’ll assessment three homebased testing approaches that require solely an influence meter or sensible coach and a tool, resembling a laptop computer or biking pc, to document the info.
We’ll observe two hypothetical athletes via this text to discover how nicely the completely different testing protocols work for various people, assessing the professionals and cons of the completely different strategies. Both datasets are from actual athletes, albeit with names modified for confidentiality.
Our first athlete, Jane, describes herself as a “diesel engine”. She is ready to keep excessive energy in steadier occasions (4.4W/kg for over an hour), however struggles to answer breakaways. Our second athlete, Sarah, is a extra explosive rider and excels in races with many surges and assaults. She has a barely decrease one-hour energy of 4.3W/kg. Both are making ready for punchy criterium-style races.
The 20-minute FTP check
This protocol (see field) is meant to estimate Functional Threshold Power (FTP), which is the utmost sustainable energy over 40-60 minutes. This carefully corresponds to the utmost lactate regular state (MLSS), which is a key marker of endurance biking health usually examined within the lab.
A key good thing about this protocol is its simplicity. It’s straightforward to estimate FTP and see how this has modified in response to coaching. Training depth zones will also be calculated primarily based on percentages of FTP, such Dr Andrew Coggan’s depth zones (see field).
A limitation of this check is that it solely assesses one facet of your health profile. Looking on the knowledge from Jane and Sarah, under, we are able to say for certain that Sarah appears to have a barely increased FTP. However, the testing doesn’t inform us something about how these athletes carry out over shorter efforts, or what their endurance skills could be like over a number of hours. On the premise of the FTP check alone, we are able to’t confidently say, for both athlete, what they need to deal with in coaching.
Another limitation is that the FTP estimate is influenced by a rider’s capability to journey above their FTP, generally known as anaerobic capability. For athletes with an abnormally giant anaerobic capability, the 20-minute check tends to provide inflated FTP estimates, whereas under-estimating FTP for these with a smaller anaerobic capability. We can see this in Sarah’s knowledge. We know her one-hour energy is about 4.3W/kg, however her FTP estimate is notably increased at 4.8W/kg.
We’d advocate utilizing a testing protocol that features a pre-fatiguing effort earlier than the principle 20-minute check. This helps to scale back the affect of anaerobic capability on the FTP outcome. A last limitation of the 20-minute check is that it’s mentally and bodily robust to carry out, particularly with the inclusion of a pre-fatiguing effort. It requires good pacing in the course of the check, which will be laborious in the event you’re unsure what energy to goal for or are comparatively new to biking.
All in all, the FTP check is beneficial for many who need to get some fundamental info on the place their present health lies and set some normal coaching targets. It is of restricted worth for novice cyclists, and isn’t ok (by itself) for understanding strengths and limiters.
Why do it?
Assess modifications in FTP over time
Set biking coaching zones
The protocol
There are plenty of barely completely different protocols. The finest embody some bouts of depth previous to the principle 20-minute check to induce prior fatigue, and thereby cut back the affect of anaerobic capability on the FTP estimate.
Warm-Up
20min warm-up @ Z1; 5min time trial paced as a constant however maximal effort; 10min @ Z1
Test
20min effort paced as evenly as attainable The first one-third ought to really feel manageable, the center ought to begin to really feel robust, and the previous few minutes ought to really feel like a max effort.
Analysis
FTP is calculated as 95% of the 20-minute common energy
How our athletes scored
Jane:
Average 20min energy: 252W
Estimated FTP: 239W (4.6W/kg)
Sarah:
Average 20min energy: 270W
Estimated FTP: 257W (4.8W/kg)
The ramp check
This protocol (under) is a substitute for the 20-minute check. The outcomes will also be used to find out Maximal Aerobic Power (MAP), the utmost energy you attain on the finish of the check, which correlates with VO2 max. Training depth zones will be set primarily based in your estimated FTP in the identical method as for the 20-minute FTP check.
Unlike the 20-minute check, the ramp check is carried out in erg mode on a wise coach, so the outcomes aren’t reliant on pacing. This means it’s extra suited to novice riders. The check can be shorter than the 20-minute check, and for many athletes solely begins to really feel laborious within the last jiffy. It’s due to this fact much less daunting than the 20-minute check.
The ramp check is easy, and most coaching platforms mechanically calculate an FTP estimate for you as soon as accomplished. A limitation of this check, although, is that it doesn’t precisely replicate a real-life sustained effort (i.e. a 40-60 minute time trial). The FTP estimate might due to this fact be much less correct than that produced by the 20-minute check, particularly for individuals with a very excessive or low anaerobic capability.
We can see this from Jane and Sarah’s knowledge. Jane’s estimated FTP has come out barely decrease than that predicted by her 20-minute check (4.5W/kg vs 4.6W.kg), whereas Sarah’s has come out barely increased (4.9W/kg vs 4.8W/kg). In my expertise, the ramp check usually overestimates FTP in novice and time-crunched cyclists who typically have a stronger anaerobic capability relative to their cardio engine.
As with the 20-minute check, the ramp check supplies solely a snapshot of an athlete’s health profile. The key variations between Jane and Sarah – i.e. that one is a punchy rider, the opposite a ‘diesel engine’ – aren’t revealed by this check.
Overall, the ramp check is beneficial for many who wrestle with pacing or need to assess their MAP. However, the 20-minute protocol is extra correct for estimating FTP and setting FTP-based coaching zones. The ramp check just isn’t useful (by itself) in assessing strengths and limiters.
Why do it?
Assess modifications in maximal cardio energy (MAP).
Estimate FTP and set coaching zones for individuals who wrestle with pacing utilizing different testing protocols.
The protocol
Power is elevated in steps, normally each 60 seconds, till you may not pedal. Typically this check can be carried out on a wise coach, utilizing erg mode. Many platforms resembling Zwift and TrainerRoad have pre-built ramp protocols.
Analysis
Your maximal cardio energy (MAP – a marker of VO2 max) is calculated as the utmost energy you obtain within the ramp check, corrected for the period of time you handle to finish within the last stage.
For instance, if energy has been rising 25W every stage, and also you make it midway via the 350W stage, then your maximal cardio energy could be 325W (final accomplished stage) plus 50% of 25W (correction for uncompleted stage). This works out as 337.5W. The ramp protocol chosen (step size and energy increments) will affect MAP, so you must solely examine outcomes throughout exams with the identical protocol.
FTP is then normally calculated as 75% of your MAP; an idea attributable to biking coach Ric Stern who initially proposed a variety of 72-77%. Platforms resembling TrainerRoad and Zwift mechanically estimate FTP for you, so that you don’t have to do these calculations.
How our athletes scored:
Jane:
MAP: 313W
Estimated FTP: 235W (4.5W/kg)
Sarah:
MAP: 353W
Estimated FTP: 265W (4.9W/kg)
Power profile testing
This model of testing entails finishing maximal efforts over a wide range of durations, measuring how energy progressively drops off over longer durations. The main good thing about this testing method is that it reveals relative strengths and limiters and permits riders to evaluate how these skills are altering over time.
You’ll additionally acquire info on learn how to individualise coaching depth targets. Training zones primarily based on FTP are derived from inhabitants averages, which don’t work nicely for everybody, so this individualisation of coaching zones might help enhance the standard of your coaching and likewise assist keep away from burn-out from using too laborious.
How to residence check with lab-like precision
To get probably the most from any testing, observe these 4 easy pointers:
1. Test beneath the identical situations every time, in order that your outcomes aren’t skewed by exterior elements resembling fatigue. Ideally try to be rested, well-fuelled with carbohydrates and hydrated.
2. Use a constant protocol every time you check. Don’t swap between completely different exams, as your outcomes received’t be comparable.
3. If testing on the street, attempt to discover a location that’s quiet and free from junctions or different hazards that could be harmful or trigger you to decelerate.
4. Most individuals discover it best to provide energy on a average gradient.
5. Re-test your health roughly each eight to 12 weeks.
Though Jane and Sarah’s knowledge is pretty related over 20 minutes and 5 minutes, there are marked variations over one-minute and five-second durations, exhibiting that Sarah is stronger over these shorter efforts. Knowing this helps us design simpler coaching programmes. For instance, with Jane, we targeted on constructing her anaerobic capability and neuromuscular energy. For Sarah, the emphasis was on her VO2 max and threshold energy, which we felt was the principle limiter hindering additional progress.
The energy profile knowledge additionally supplies a sign of how we would need to adapt coaching intensities above threshold to swimsuit these completely different athletes, e.g. six occasions 60sec on/3min off). For Jane, along with her decrease anaerobic capability, we would initially set her a goal of 125-135% FTP. In distinction, for Sarah, we would anticipate these efforts to be carried out someplace nearer to 140-150% FTP.
A key disadvantage of energy profile testing is its complexity. There are a wide range of completely different testing and evaluation approaches accessible, and it may be laborious to decide on between them. Interpretation of the outcomes is likewise extra advanced, and should require enter from a coach.
Physically and mentally, this testing could also be extra daunting than the earlier two testing strategies, particularly in the event you’re following a protocol resembling Wahoo Systm’s 4DP check, the place all efforts are carried out in the identical session. Finally, whereas it’s attainable to do some fundamental energy profile testing at no cost by evaluating your outcomes with an influence profile chart, lots of the evaluation choices have an related price (e.g. to buy or subscribe to software program, or pay a payment per check).
Overall, energy profile testing is an method we’d advocate for anybody severe about optimising their coaching and efficiency. It supplies rather more complete knowledge about your skills and the way your coaching ought to be designed.
Why do it?
Estimate FTP
Understand strengths and limiters, and consider modifications in these over time
Understand learn how to adapt coaching depth targets
The protocol
This model of testing entails finishing maximal efforts over a number of (usually three or 4) durations.
There are a variety of various protocols and evaluation strategies that can be utilized. Common check durations are 5 seconds, one minute, 5 minutes and 20 minutes to check, respectively, neuromuscular energy, anaerobic capability, VO2 max and threshold energy. Some platforms (e.g. Wahoo Systm) will stroll you thru an influence profile check step-by-step. Efforts longer than one minute ought to be carried out in separate classes, in order that accumulating fatigue doesn’t skew the outcomes. Efforts ought to be constantly paced throughout the period, and ideally ought to be preceded by a very good warm-up.
Analysis
At its most simple, this entails evaluating your maximal energy (in W/kg) over 5 seconds, one minute, 5 minutes and 20 minutes to an influence profile chart, to determine the domains (e.g. neuromuscular energy vs VO2 max) during which you’re comparatively stronger and weaker.
Alternatively, there are numerous platforms/purposes that produce a strengths and limiters report. The hottest embody Systm’s 4DP, WKO5 and INSCYD. All will estimate FTP and generate individualised coaching depth targets. The latter two additionally mannequin physiological parameters, resembling VO2 max and anaerobic capability – simulating the outcomes you’d get from a lab check.
How our athletes scored
Jane:
5sec: 586W (11.3W/kg)
1min: 372W (7.2W/kg)
5min: 296W (5.7W/kg)
20min: 252W (4.8W/kg)
Sarah:
5sec: 725W (13.4W/kg)
1min: 519W (9.6W/kg)
5min: 306W (5.7W/kg)
20min: 270W (5.0W/kg)
Taking a balanced perspective
Power-based testing is a handy method to health testing that may actually improve your coaching. However, it’s necessary to acknowledge that every one power-based exams are delicate to variables together with motivation and fatigue. Also, producing a very maximal effort exterior of competitors may be very laborious.
Power-free health exams
If you don’t have an influence meter or smart-trainer, attempt these easy methods to benchmark your progress
Local circuit
Pick an area loop that takes you 30-60min and isn’t too affected by junctions and heavy site visitors. Ride it as laborious as you may, noting your time or, even higher, making a Strava section. Repeat month-to-month.
Hill climb
Cycle gently to your nearest lengthy climb, ideally not less than 5min, and journey up it as laborious as you may. Record your time and be aware it down prepared to check subsequent time.
Sprint check
From a rolling begin within the greatest gear attainable, hit the lap button and dash to your most pace. When you get residence, test the pace and the way lengthy it took to get there. That’s your benchmark.
In addition, power-based exams don’t seize all points of health (even the complete energy profile check). It’s widespread for athletes to really feel subjectively that their biking efficiency has improved, however to not see this mirrored in check outcomes. Some cyclists merely don’t check nicely!
We can see this in Jane and Sarah’s knowledge. Across the board, Sarah appears to attain higher in all exams. However, we all know that Jane can common a better energy output over an hour (4.4W/kg versus 4.3W/kg). We strongly suspect that Jane has higher endurance, and the distinction in energy and efficiency between the 2 riders would turn into extra marked over even longer durations.
Ultimately, it’s necessary to not connect an excessive amount of significance to the outcomes of efficiency testing, and to interpret your leads to the context of your subjective emotions and your current coaching. If you’ve been engaged on creating your dash skills, for instance, you then shouldn’t essentially anticipate to see a rise in your FTP. Power testing supplies a helpful perception to assist information coaching, however don’t use this as your sole measure of progress.
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/fitness/lab-to-living-room-how-to-benchmark-your-cycling-fitness-at-home