Since you are using CPS, did you check out the power 411 page. Your question is explained, specifically, on this page:

http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/profile.html

Anaerobic capacity is going to be less than a 2 min test, and CPS recommends 1 min.

VO2max will be shorter than 10 min certainly. Typically, a max 5-6 min test is a good measure of VO2max power.

If by "Threshold" you mean LT (or as it's being called in power circles recently functional threshold) the 60 min test is a good measure. Alternatively, you can use a shorter test, e.g. 30 min and adjust accordingly.

Tempo would the power range below FT, can be maintained for several hours if fuel is sufficient, and isn't really necessary to test. CPS bases it on 80% of threshold power.

Hope this helps

---

Steve

http://www.PeaksCoachingGroup.com

Thanks for responding Steve. It's still quite ambiguous having read AC's powerprofiling article. As well, it doesn't help me that I don't have excel and so can't look at the charts he made. I don't understand why the charts aren't just on that same page, free from being tied to software that not everybody has (do you know if they are anywhere else on the net?). Anyway, my numbers just seem way off based upon the "coggan power levels" zone calculations. A few weeks back I did a test/informal race that gave me a fairly legit CP60 to input my estimated threshold and therefore calculate my power levels. That CP60 was 297w. From that, CPS is telling me this...

AC 359-up
VM 315-358
TH 270-314
TE 226-269
E 166-225

Now, a couple days ago I did a test of my own. Unfortunately I didn't realize it was suggested to do 1-2 minute tests for AC and 5-7 minute tests for VM. Instead, I did a 3.5 minute test, which turns out to be pretty much in between the two. Now, that test showed an average of 444w. Though it wasn't really the "correct" length to test for one of those zones (dammit) it still shows that the calculator has grossly underestimated my AC and probably VM zones. Is it possible to manually adjust the zones, or can I only input a number for threshold and getting the resulting generic numbers?

check your email, sent it converted to pdf

I just took something called the Wingate Test. It tests anaerobic capacity.

Basically you warmup for 5 min, adding about 1% of your body weight every 1:30 sec of the warmup. Also every 1:15-1:30 of the warmup you do a 10 second sprint.

After 5 minutes you have 2 minutes to recovery (and sitting still isn't recovery, you want to keep the legs moving very very easily or you can get up and stretch)

Then the test comes. You spin as hard as you can and once you reach your max cadence you give a signal and they drop 7% of your body weight for resistance. BAM. Then you pedal as hard as you can (no standing) for 30 seconds.

Followed by a 5 minute cooldown.

This test was freakin' hard. Do NOT try this unsupervised. People pass out, throw up, all sorts of stuff. It's a very specific test but it test your anerobic capacity and fatigue index really well.

excel viewer

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=C8378BF4-996C-4569-B547-75EDBD03AAF0&displaylang=en

If you want to get a good understanding of training with a power meter then go to here:
http://lists.topica.com/lists/wattage/read
Lurk for awhile to get the lingo down.

Also have you read this?

http://www.midweekclub.ca/powerFAQ.htm

greg

Rest assured that the results of a 3.5 min will be substantially different that a 6 min test. Having worked with several individuals who have applied the AC training levels, they are relatively accurate. At aCP60 of 297, I would expect your VO2max (just ballparking in my head and not calculating) to be between 360-380, and that's right at the top of the zone estimated from Coggan. Training to improve VO2max really need not be done right at VO2max, so, your training zone would be set perfectly. Granted this is all assuming you do a 6 min test and find your VO2max power is closer to the Coggan level. So, to say it was grossly underestimating your VO2max power is impossible to say until you actually test it, and I would expect you will find it gets it pretty close. You can certainly make your own zones, or use another version (e.g. Cycle smart) of training zones, but I think you should just try using the appropriate tests, and you will find adjustment unnecessary.

---

Steve

http://www.PeaksCoachingGroup.com

Thanks again Steve, and others who've responded, including Gary who sent me AC's chart via email. I'll shoot for a 6 min test (sounds intense and painful) the next time I'm feeling mentally/physically fresh to do so, maybe today if things click during my ride. Whatever the case may be regarding my exact numbers for the different zones, it would appear I'm an "inverted V" on AC's chart. What type of races do "inverted V'ers" do well at?

Steve,

do you ever use the Monod protocol for your athletes? I find it a pretty good "indicator" of the CP numbers. Your thoughts?

Kurt

---

http://www.pbmcoaching.com
USA Triathlon Level 3 Elite Coach
USA Cycling Level 1 Elite Coach

Again, I would reserve judgement on the relative accuracy of the inverted V profile until you have solid numbers for the respective time frames. The real value in the profile is identifying relative strengths and weaknesses. So, if you are a roadie and you have a very poor 5 s max and anaerobic capacity, you best be looking for breaks. You may also want to train your sprint, but if it is so poor, relative to good aerobic numbers, why bother. OTOH, if you have good 5 s max and/or anaerobic capacity, you should do well in group finishes, but you need to make sure you have the FT to get there, and the experience to take out the finish from a group.

---

Steve

http://www.PeaksCoachingGroup.com

I think it is a very good indicator of CP numbers, but depending on the athlete, I'm not sure how important those CP numbers are. For triathletes, in a primarily aerobic sport (I know crits are primarily aerobic too), who have to do long TTs and need to pace themselves, the CP approach is of value. OTOH, for roadies or mtbers who perform shorter TTs very close to LT/FT, or higher, testing sprint, anaerob cap, VO2max and LT are more important in my opinion. Since roadies and mtbers are focusing primarily on the left side of the CP curve, getting anaerobic numbers, and basing aerobic training around LT/FT is the best approach. For a mtber or crit racer to know their CP 90, 120, 180 isn't of much importance; knowing and training their sprint, VO2max and LT/FT is. If you really want to, you can plug VO2max and FT test numbers into the algorithm and come up with CP numbers anyway. If you are trying to avoid the long (for a roadie) TT to detemine FT/LT, I usually go with a 30 min TT and adjust accordingly. As someone else is often fond of saying, there a many ways to skin a cat.

I guess those are my thoughts. Please no flames, it's been a rough week.

---

Steve

http://www.PeaksCoachingGroup.com