What's with the tri-modal data? The clumps below 65 g/Kg look to be from a totally different sub-population.

I'ma performance - field test person but I have come across people who H A T E Time trials for one reason or another and being triathletes are never in a position to absolutely nail it for an hoour. Maybe those folks would prefer a stepped test.

I don't know what might explain that sudden shift. I didn't want to bias the results, though, so left it in.


Indeed, there are times when I think that physiological testing can still be useful. I just don't think that it is the be-all, end-all that many seem to think it is.

EDIT: BTW, my re-training so far has consisted of only 30-60 min steady power trainer rides plus 3 incremental exercise tests like this one, yet the modeling approach still seems to be working quite well for estimating FTP (FRC is undoubtedly underestimated because of GIGO, though). So, doing flat-out TTs may not be necessary, at least as long as you do push things every once in a while.

Complete opposite here.

I loathe doing FTP tests, even the 20 minute ones. Surprisingly, I am a short course athlete and I have no issue going as hard as possible, making myself hurt, for the duration of the race. For this reason, I tend not to actually test myself that often during the race season, more so in the off season.

Because of this, I am actually looking into lactate testing both professionally and DIY. In fact, I have a session booked in this Tuesday for my first and if the data looks comprehensible, I may stump up the cash and buy my own. It is interesting that the tests by Andrew by seem to indicate that it may not be necessary to do performance testing for wimps such as myself.

Thanks

---

On the internet, you can be anything you want. It is a pity so many people choose to be stupid.

You should be able to peg your FTP from the race numbers.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Thanks for sharing your data- and great discussion question. I will say up front my thoughts/answers are a mix between personal bias, program evaluation from current unpublished observations, and the research we used to shape our current program (biomechanical run analysis and occupational performance metrics). As well, big differences between health, fitness, and performance. Health and fitness- many require constant feedback and affirmation because they either lack a solid foundation of intrinsic motivation (i.e.- value of a fitbit) or they always tend to lean toward intensity levels that are too high for a central adaptation and too low for a peripheral adaption (i.e.- heart rate ranges may help shape left and right limits, but the user often makes the mistake of HR being an "absolute" training guide rather than a overall tool to assist/complement).

Since many on this forum fall into performance-oriented goals and approaches:

Re: monitoring of physiological responses being necessary to guide training? I'd say for majority and most part- no. Once an athlete has reached a level of self-awareness that allows them to better "feel" what right looks like, it then comes down to practical real-world bench mark tests to see if the overall training was effective. Bottom line (simplified)- were they faster? yes? Drive on and reevaluate to make sure progress or maintenance (phys and psych) are improved or stable. Not faster? reevaluate to see what needs to be adjusted. In the case of those benchmarks, use the monitoring device to help narrow extraneous/confounding variables and assist with interpreting the results.

The monitoring/guiding of training also loosely ties in with those who are staunch periodization/"increase only 10%" in their approach. Is it the "periodization" linked to performance? Or is it the fact that they stay consistent? I'd argue that the performance benefit is because they stay consistent. Part of that consistency is knowing when to go "hard." Since many have difficulty in how much to apply for intensity of a workout goal (vo2, threshold, speed, etc etc), at least periodization can help shape.

Re: ultimate integration of all underlying physiological (and psychological) determinants of performance sufficient? I'd say yes. Everything comes together for "game day" whether someone is ready or not- but this is why people will sometimes scratch their head and say "I hit all HR/wattage/LT/etc goals" and wonder why they did not reach their goals that were constantly monitored during training to guide training, but then did they hit "goal times." Yes, HR/wattage/LT/etc can decrease the variables and help fine tune, but it is actual time-based efforts that determine performance.

This is why arguably those who do long-duration "marathon goal-paced" workouts fair much better performance-wise than those who do not. They were already physically capable of hitting goal times, were aware psychologically of what it "felt" like, and figured out a way to endure no matter what.

So I'd also say that the better approach is to know performance benchmarks at varying distances relative to the overall goal. Sure daily monitoring with a specific feedback device during workouts can assist with what is happening, but it is the comprehensive/ultimate integration where performance reigns supreme.

Indeed, and I do. However, I am interested in what the science says and it will be validation about what I think my FTP is. Also, from now until March, I will be pretty much indoors, so will have to face an FTP test at least a few times between now and then if only to keep myself honest. In line with this, I do intend to get the lactate/vo2 testing done every 2 months and see how it lines up. If all is well, I will look to purchase one of the hand-held monitors and test myself more frequently.

---

On the internet, you can be anything you want. It is a pity so many people choose to be stupid.

Honest question, are you framing this within the context of "VS" as in your thread title or "discuss" as in your last word on the thread.

Maurice

Meaning, do I expect people to come down *entirely* on one side or the other? If so, absolutely not, since I wouldn't myself.

To put it another way: while I certainly have an opinion as to which approach to favor, I don't really have an agenda...just thought I'd use my MoxyMonitor data to start a discussion.

Great discussion so far. I have suffered through a bunch of VO2max and FTP tests over the past few years and here are my thoughts. In terms of using the results of these tests for racing and training I find very little benefit. The greatest benefit that I have seen with the values is to use them as benchmarks to compare where I am at a current point in time to where I was at a previous point in time. The one problem that I have seen though is that if you want to use data the way that I do to compare two points in time, the testing has to be done in the same way with the same equipment. Last year I had 3 VO2max treadmill tests done within a month and got 3 totally different results! Which one do I believe? I guess the answer is to pick one and stick with it, as long as I only use that equipment and testing protocol for future testing (which I did repeat and got very similar results the following time).

How different?

(Any more than a few percent, and yes, something's amiss. It doesn't/shouldn't have to be that way, though. That is, in the right hands your measured VO2max will be independent of the equipment and the exact protocol.)

I thought that it was very strange to have such different values as well. I had two tests performed with the same ramped protocol (increasing speed and grade) about a week apart but on different equipment and had 57 and 59ml/kg/min and then I had another test with a modified Bruce protocol at a different facility about a month later and had 66ml/kg/min. My guess is that the 66 is the most accurate value (not because I am wishing for the highest, but based on my run race performances), when I had it retested a year later with the same equipment and the same modified Bruce protocol it was 69, I did have most solid training prior to this test. One thing to note is that all of the tests were performed by different grad students (I like to be a guinea pig for pain).

As the physiological systems and the human brain / mind / parts of brain / hormonal systems / emotions are so intertwined I feel that looking at heart rate or blood lactate or other physiological measures, although fascinating and necessary to further our knowledge and understanding, are for coaching and self coaching purposes, over complicated, and will only ever give an insight into limited responses to what really matters which is the performance.

I know from experience that human performance is dependent on so many factors. I have seen people's performance improve dramatically after completing exams, or changing jobs. Life stress affects performance.

There are also problems with testing, alluded to above. How reliable is it?

Even testing performance and looking at power alone the results can be skewed by the motivational skills of the testers. That is why we have double blind testing, so nothing is perfect.

I lean to the simplest option available which is performance testing. Fewer things to give you misleading results.

I'm also aware that as knowledge and understanding progresses we learn that things we knew for a fact in the past get proven wrong in the future.

Can't resist reminding everyone what we used to think about lactic acid.

That said, I'm all for gadgets which make physiological testing easier, cheaper and available to all.

But I think coaches and the self coached will do better to concentrate on measuring performance and base their training decisions on that.


Few people have the scientific or medical background to interpret things like lactate anyway.

Used to? Still do- I still have people come in @ 2x's/mon thinking this.


Reliability is very suspect, not just b/c of the SEE for many protocols or equipment, but also due to faulty interpretation of results. Worst offender is the VO2max test, and those who feel the personal trainer who had them run on a treadmill using a submax protocol and gas exchange estimates (like New Leaf).

Very true points though-

---

http://www.reathcon.com

Basically 80-90% of our work with athletes is squad or group based, if you are looking at testing from the perspective of just identifying threshold then yes…. you can do that very well in the field. It is pretty easy even without strict FTP testing or even training software to take a good look at a body of work over 2 weeks or so and have a pretty good idea of what FTP or T pace or 10km pace is in running.

We see athletes a lot... 10-15 hours a week on average, over 3-4 swims, 3 bikes and usually 3-5 runs. There is always a pretty good understanding of where the athlete is at.

Having said that the question is whether testing in and of itself just confirms what you already know, IE another layer of validation, or whether it can be used to change or manipulate training going forward.

Maurice

I don't see performance testing as another layer of validation but as the validation. Yes, usually you can be confident you know where you are or where someone you are training is, but the only know for a fact when you have tested performance. Even then the result of just one test can't be taken as absolute evidence because you can never be sure how much 'motivation' contributed to the result. Although if you know your athlete you should be able to tell if he is giving his all or holding a little back or sandbagging.

I can see here that blood lactate testing and possibly even heart rate observed during a test might give you some insight as to how much the improvement is down to improved physiology and how much is down to improved motivation and just trying even harder than in previous tests. But then training yourself or your clients to push harder is part of coaching and it is improved performance we are aiming for which is as much mental as physiological. Then you have to consider if just one physiological measure or even two give you an accurate insight into the whole physiological picture.


Invariably I only do a test when I'm confident I'm going to hit the numbers. I usually know what I'm capable of, but I still like to prove it.


It should also be remembered how depressing and de motivating it is when you do a bad test - sometimes truth hurts - depends on the athlete, some might need a dose of truth, but you can damage some athletes who may be very talented but a bit fragile, so testing maximally needs to be used sparingly with some.


I must say how surprised I am how few people have bothered to post on this subject. No end of inane posts about trivial matters, then no interest when something important gets posted.

I used to think that way- then I started testing with more frequency at short durations at random times weekly. Even during runs I'd classify as recovery.

It requires interpretation to account for being able to go faster at the shorter distance compared to the long, but the performance trend is a great tool.


But when you mention LT/HR as the observation, I would probably go toward a more practical route and just go with known distance, over typical race terrain, with time being the primary factor and GPS being the secondary (for purposes to gauge pace throughout, and provide insight on going too fast or fading at the end). Time stays the same but they negative split? Motivated. Time stays the same but they fade? More pace work. Time slows? back off on the intensity volume. Time is just plain and simple slow? more is more. Of course, that's the simple summary, but like you said, surprised not too many are jumping on this thread- which is potentially a good one and not trivial.

Are you using LT/HR for ranges? If so, what freq for testing?

---

http://www.reathcon.com

I should have made my post more clear. I was referring to a maximal test, e.g 2000m or 5,000m rowing or 20 min cycling or a 10k run.

I do look at heart rate. e.g do a test at a given heart rate or a given power. Yes I'm aware of all the arguments about heart rate, but I have found it remarkably stable provided you control the environment. Rowing coaches seem to use heart rate / power to check progress as 2000m tests are so damaging. But I still pay more attention to how a particular power output or pace feels or how someone 'looks' in training.

I'm a believer in attacking an event from both ends. e.g. 2000m rowing you won't progress after a short time killing yourself doing 2,000m, but you will progress with doing 100m and 500m efforts, sparingly, and doing a lot of steady 20 minute and 30 minute rows.

Sorry I forget this isn't a rowing forum, but exactly the same for running or cycling. You might attack an 800m run with 200m sprints and 6 mile runs.


I have not used blood lactate, I had tests done on me many years ago. I'm sure the scientists knew what they were doing, but I don't remember those tests telling me or my coaches back then anything we didn't know already.

I use power or pace for training levels. I'm not a great believer in doing lots and lots of threshold training. Possibly for cycling you can do much more of this, but for other sports I reckon it does more damage than good. That said, I find Coggan's power training levels are as good a description as it is ever going to get.

Practically though I find you can't go too far wrong with 4 levels.

Easy - breathing easy, able to hold a conversation. No feeling of burning in muscles, feels too easy, you should be going so easy there is no way you should get anywhere near the slightest feeling of burn in the muscles. Never breathing hard almost able to nose breath and keep mouth shut. All day pace. Walk up hills if need be.

Moderate - still breathing easily under control, not allowing any more than occasional feeling of burning in muscles, easing off the moment you feel it, still easy, still feels as if you are holding back too much, you can still hold a conversation but need the occasional big breath. You can't do this with your mouth shut. You can do this for hours.

Hard - near or over the red line, breathing hard, muscles burning but tolerable, you could do this for 20 min to an hour, just. Unable to talk more than the odd barked word. Threshold, red line, FTP whatever you want to call it.

Very hard - any pace over the red line which is only sustainable for a few minutes. Only go here very sparingly, imagine it as magic speed dust, take the right amount and you go faster, take a gram more and you do damage. If it was a map it would say "here be dragons".

...........and yet no telling how many like myself are very interested in being an audience to this discussion. I don't know enough to chip in. Much like I do on wattage I tend just watch it unfold and hopefully learn something. Thanks for you guys that are willing to discuss these topics (and hopefully civilly unlike some I have seen go quite sour on wattage after a little while).

[quote Richard

I must say how surprised I am how few people have bothered to post on this subject. No end of inane posts about trivial matters, then no interest when something important gets posted.[/quote]
I haven't done much physiological testing on my athletes in the past 4-5 years..... Performance is measure daily, we have our eyes on the gauge at all time. I don't see the added value of physiological testing to confirm something I already feel 100% confident in.

Performance is everything, a lot more complex to achieve and as more variable...... and I have a busy Saturday coming up with 8-10h of intense athletes testing on the big island!

---

Jonathan Caron / Professional Coach / ironman champions / age group world champions
Jonnyo Coaching
Instargram

I haven't done much physiological testing on my athletes in the past 4-5 years..... Performance is measure daily, we have our eyes on the gauge at all time. I don't see the added value of physiological testing to confirm something I already feel 100% confident in.

Performance is everything, a lot more complex to achieve and as more variable...... and I have a busy Saturday coming up with 8-10h of intense athletes testing on the big island![/quote]
Jonnyo...totally agree on performance testing being the way to go. Speaking of which, where do we sign up for the 8 hour performance test, prefer Kona to be the location too and I will take sub 9, sub 10, sub 11....heck I'll take any 140.6 mile performance test in Kona in October that involves paying Messick and sportstats doing the measurement! I think there is a lineup from here to Cape Town wanting to sign up for that test.

In the mean time my Computrainer is busted, so not sure what I will do while watching 8+ hours of guys being tested in Kona on Saturday. I might just need to sit on the couch. I believe there were 10 triathlon related performance tests beside my name on sportstats this year, so maybe I am allowed to sit on the couch this weekend.

Dev

One thing to add. Even if physiological testing has validity, many more athletes own the tools to do performance based testing frequently...pool splits, track times and powermeters pretty well can tell us everything we need to know about physiological adaptations.

I was working with a lady recently who was unable to lose weight. She didn't respond to training, no improvement. Despite careful calorie counting and training she was not losing weight when she should be, the numbers did not add up.

I advised she see a doctor and get a thyroid test. The test came back normal. We worked harder and at times I thought she might be secretly eating or cheating on portions. No weight loss, no improvement, and other problems, excessive tiredness and feeling cold all the time. I encouraged her to demand another test. Still it came back negative. After a few more months of no progress another test, guess what, under active thyroid and she is now on thyroxin for life.

My point is, weighing her, quantifying her training, adding up the calories in against the calories burnt, her performance told us there was a problem with her metabolism a year before it showed up in the thyroid tests.

The test proved what was wrong. The performance testing told us there was definitely a problem but not what the problem was. I made a lucky guess - but the blood test came back normal when we knew something was very wrong.

Her performance has improved dramatically and she is losing weight, slowly, but with little effort.

I wonder what thyroxin would do if a normal athlete took it? Got a feeling some of the more emaciated athletes we see might be using it.

I'm not sure the relevance of the above is to this thread other than it shows how testing and quantifying performance etc can tell you that there is a problem but not necessarily what the problem is.

AC knows my views on this, but for the purposes you state, I will chime in. As I have been saying for years when I do the USAC coaching clinics, and what I got somewhat shouted down for at the elite clinic last year, there is not much value in lab testing in cycling, particularly for "threshold" determination. I have a full lab at my disposal (3 x metabolic carts, two velotrons, numerous lactate sensors) and never test my cycling athletes. I have an athlete who just made the world tour, whom I've been coaching for 7 years and we have never done a single lab based test. Others have done it for/to him as a team exercise that they are all doing that was mandated by the team, but I have never once had him do one. I have all the info I need from his power meter. The problem is, that the resolution of lab based threshold tests are too low in two respects. First, let's say I'm doing a traditional LT test on a cyclist. I'll get maybe 8 or 10 data points (blood samples every 3-5 min), of which 5 or 6 are not relevant to the threshold one may be interested in. So, only 3 or 4 samples that are really pertinent to the thing you are trying to identify. Worse yet, if one sample is off, which is quite common in practical terms for those using hand held units, the threshold will not be accurate no matter what criteria you are using for determination.

(as an aside, this is the potential upside to threshold determination using NIRS as opposed to blood lactate itself. That being, if you get more resolution with NIRS and, depending on the approach used by the device, get more resolution with regard to the threshold determination compared to blood lactate methods. I still wouldn't recommend NIRS for threshold determination over power data, though. As a further aside, when we do do lactate determination for scientific studies or for other disciplines, we typically use hand held units, but we use 3 of them for each sample to mitigate the potential for one erroneous reading throwing everything off. That is obviously expensive, but it's not my money and I'd rather have data I have more confidence in. I doubt many fitness clubs or coaches performing lactate testing use 3 units per sample to get replicates).

The second aspect of "resolution" problem relates to the fact that lab based testing can (or is) only performed once or twice a season. On the other hand, performance data, with a power meter, is acquired every single training session. Are all of those sessions "test" sessions? No, but minimally, data that informs threshold determination can be acquired bi-weekly, if not weekly, over the course of an entire season. So, one test per season to determine "threshold" using a lab based approach vs 20, 30, or more tests per season to determine threshold using power based approach.

Aside from the technical limitations to threshold determination using lab based methods in cycling, one of the more problematic aspects of lab based testing lies in the fact that, if wrong, it can really send the athlete down the wrong path. To illustrate, again using the pro cyclist to whom I refer above, when he was riding for one of the top CT teams in the world, they had a team testing session at camp. The test was conducted by a former pro tour rider who had taken up coaching and he was performing LT testing with a hand held device on a computrainer. Beforehand, I told the cyclist to ignore whatever results he got from the test because there were two eventualities, 1) the test would confirm what we already knew from the reams of power data we had on hand and would be simply redundant or 2) be wrong and if believed, would be potentially disastrous from a planning/confidence standpoint. At the time, his FTP was 5.5 w/kg and sure enough, the test identified a "threshold" (not sure which one he was going for) at 4 w/kg. Now, it's plausible that with an FT ~ 5.5. w/kg, one of the LT thresholds could actually correspond to the 4 w/kg range. I saw the raw data though, and that was not the case. If the test was to be believed, the FT, as determined by the lactate analysis should have been around 4 w/kg. So, if the athlete didn't have me in his ear telling him the test was erroneous etc. etc... his confidence could have been severely hampered. Worse yet, basing training off of that number would have been a mess for the upcoming season. As it was, we simply laughed it off and moved forward making good progress and getting good results.

So, my final point is, one bad test can be very misleading. So, if you don't put any stock in the test, because it may be misleading, then why even do the test? Again, all it can do is confirm what you already know from power data and is simply redundant.

All the aforementioned being said, I do find value in lab testing for running. Running is more complicated than cycling (physiologically and biomechanically) and there are more pieces to the puzzle that can be filled in using lab methods in running. I still wouldn't necessarily use a lab test for "threshold" determination in running, but we do them if people want them. There can be some value in this regard, particularly for recreational runners who will not be familiar with the various ways to determine FT for running and may not even be "up" to attempting them due to the inherent stresses involved in all-out running. For recreational runners, sub-max tests are a necessity. Further, there is much information about a runner who walks in off the street that I can glean from lab data that I cannot necessarily get from training data. Still, for highly trained runners/ triathletes performance data is generally as good as, or better, than lab data. .... for threshold determination. Gait analysis, economy, etc. is another matter.

---

Steve

http://www.PeaksCoachingGroup.com