Testing, the story.
Measuring is knowing. Correction!
Measuring to know. Correction!
What needs to be measured to know what?
The inspiration for this blog post is the TrainingPeaks newsletter:
"Stop guessing your zones: threshold tests for bike, run, and swim."
Anyone who's been using TP as a training platform long enough undoubtedly remembers the test procedure from, yes, 25 years ago. Go "all out" for an hour and you'll know your Functional Threshold Power. To be clear, back then it was exclusively about cycling.
With this FTP test, they wanted to define the boundary between sustainable and unsustainable efforts and offer a more practical solution to the rather time-consuming and cumbersome, yet physiologically much better-founded Maximum Lactate Steady State determination.
But TrainingPeaks, like all other training platforms, is also a commercial platform. In other words, they have to consider their customers' needs and therefore focus on ease of use. Simplicity over precision, in other words.
Their newsletter therefore begins with
· “The phrase FTP test most likely strikes fear into your heart”.
· “The method is extremely difficult and mentally taxing”.
· “The test is disruptive to your training”.
They continue: "Fortunately, there are less demanding alternative tests such as a 3', 8', 20', or 30' test. Not testing is also an option, as they also offer a mathematical approach for determining that magical "acidification threshold," the mFTP, or modeled FTP.
Knowing the relationship between maximum power output and endurance time does indeed allow us to map a complete physiological profile of an athlete. A profile that then forms the basis for establishing individual training zones and is essential for calculating the actual workload of an effort. Without this data, well-founded training planning is impossible.
This brings us to the issue of testing: what must be measured to know what? In other words, what do we need to measure to know our acidification threshold, our VO2max, our Vlamax, our Maximum Aerobic Power, the share of anaerobic reserve during heavy efforts, the zone with the highest percentage of fat burning...? That will not be the average power output of the last 30 seconds of a 3-minute effort, as TrainingPeaks would have us believe. Their testing procedure won't even correctly calculate the acidification threshold.
The truth is that only a carefully composed battery of tests can provide us with the most essential information and thus increase the likelihood of maximum training efficiency. So don't be tempted by the "one-size-fits-all approach": one test isn't enough! If you're not a fan of testing, don't test at all, just trust your gut and use the Rate of Perceived Exertion.
Testing: you either love it or hate it.
Testing is necessary! The test battery we propose in our book "Cycling Training in 2025+" is scientifically sound and will therefore appeal to cyclists who want to maximize their training efforts. It's a valuable and free alternative to the often expensive lab tests.
Testing shouldn't be seen as a record attempt where every underperformance is perceived negatively. On the contrary, testing is a way to evaluate fitness at specific times, is the ideal tool for objectively assessing training approaches, and is essential for shaping future training incentives.
But there is more. Thanks to the physiological profile, which is revealed by a carefully compiled test battery, the acute load on the various energy systems during exercise can also be calculated. As a result, the chronic load can also be estimated much more accurately, which is essential for avoiding overload and overtraining.
Finally, there's self-knowledge, which is crucial for accurately assessing competitive performance. Knowing what intensity you can maintain for 2’, 5’, 10’, 20’ and 40’ is a benchmark for a multitude of race situations, such as prologues and time trials, but also lead outs and solos, to win the race in a masterful way.