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.
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?
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”.