Do you test? FTP perhaps? Or do you just race to prove yourself?
There's an abundance of information about testing; why you should do it, how it will make you faster, how FTP is THE thing to test. But do you need to test? What's the benefit? And is FTP really a thing?
Our lead sport scientist, coach, and resident Dr, having worked in Olympic endurance sports since 2013 with World Champions and Olympic medalists across triathlon, athletics, and cycling, clears the smoke to leave just the good stuff for you to decide.
Why test?
This is absolutely the first question you have to ask yourself! Why test? Do you need to test? So, testing does have some real benefits:
Baseline measures to show progress
Identify strengths and opportunities to improve performance
Allows individualisation of training
Provides objective data to set targets
Can be motivational, providing purpose and a sense of accomplishment
Build confidence going in to racing
However, not all tests are equal. Some would say any data is better than no data. But as a scientist and coach, I completely disagree. Wrong information can be damaging and misleading, so it's important if you do test, you test well.
And of course, you might not need to, or want to test! Racing is the best test; Paul Manning, Olympic champion on the track and coach to multiple Olympic gold medalists and World champions would say it's the competition who tells you if you're good enough. So, a test could give you the confidence to know you can go and deliver, or you just go and do it!
So, how to test?
There's absolutely heaps of ways to test, but typically they fall in to three categories; Physiological tests, Predictive tests, Performance tests.
"Testing means I know where I stand, where I can improve and provides essential feedback on how I'm training." – Charlie Tanfield - Olympic Silver Medalist
Physiological tests involve lots of highly accurate, expensive equipment. If someone offers a physiological test in a bike shop, run away, run as far as you can go. Predictive tests use validated equations and protocols that have published in research articles and usually compared to physiological tests. And performance tests are exactly that.
But, before we go any further, let's be really clear about who can test, and I mean, who should you let test you!!!
In the UK, there is no protection over job titles like sport scientist, physiologist, performance scientist, or any other title like that. However, there is one accredited body, called the British Association of Sport and Exercise Science. To be an accredited sport scientist, or physiologist, you need to have undergone specific education, including a masters degree, and undergo a supervised process that takes a minimum of 2 years. Whilst there are other ways to define credibility, it's a great resource for you to check against. If anyone is offering any physiological test, please, please, please check they are accredited using the list here. And if they are not (not all great physiologists are accredited), check why, and check their credentials. I am an accredited sport scientist, and have been since 2016.
Physiological testing
This is my bread and butter, something I've run since 2009 on Olympic and World champions across a range of sports including on the treadmill, on the bike, and in the pool. You may recall the training I did with Manon Lloyd for GCN, which involved physiological testing before and after a training block. You can watch it below as a reminder...
There's loads of tests here, which we won't go in to. It typically involves measuring the air you are breathing in and out to assess metabolism, efficiency (the energy cost of running or cycling at a speed), and maximal oxygen uptake (the maximal rate of oxygen your body can take in and use). It also usually involves a small blood sample taken from your fingertip or ear to measure blood lactate concentration. Be wary of handheld analysers; typically these are not accurate enough for testing! A typical handheld blood lactate analyser costs up to £500, whilst the equipment we use in the lab costs around £20,000. I know which one I feel more confident in.
In swimming, you tend not to look at the air you're breathing, instead focussing on blood lactate concentration, and likely rating of perceived exertion. You might perform a sub-maximal assessment, e.g., 3-5 minute stages increasing power or speed on each one, then a ramp assessment up to max. And you get some really good data from it, like this by here.
It's a great way to identify training zones, get a full picture of you and your physiology, and obtain very reliable and accurate data you can be confident in.
So, where's the draw back? Well, it isn't cheap. You'll also have to go to a laboratory, typically a university, and you probably won't be able to use your own bike. So, like everything, there are pros and cons to it.
If I have access, then I use this a lot, as it really does tell you a lot. However, I tend to use it in combination with something below to give me some other insight in to what's going on under the hood.
Predictive testing
The most common used here is critical power/ speed testing. Critical power/ speed is the concept that there is a hyperbolic relationship between power output/ speed and the time power can be sustained for (Hill, 1993). A number of performance trials are performed, and the theory states that the asymptote of the relationship can be sustained without fatigue and is related to aerobic components such as maximal oxygen uptake, anaerobic threshold and sustainable pace (Hill, 1993). The other side of this is anaerobic work capacity, which is related to anaerobic components such as maximum oxygen deficit, and is how much you can work above critical power. Whilst more trials are typically seen as better, in cycling 2 trials separated by 45 min is good (Parker Simpson and Kordi, 2017), but in running you probably want to do these on separate days (Galbraith et al., 2014).
To do it, you perform two maximal efforts separated by 45 minutes (or 24 hours) with the aim of producing the highest average power as possible, or completing the distance as fast as possible. Often, 3 and 12 min is used (as in the paper by Parker Simpson and Kordi, 2017, and as we used with the Great Britain Cycling Team endurance riders), with 3 around the shortest, and 20 min typically the longest. For running, it depends a little on your speed, but perhaps 1000-1200 m and 3000 m might be suitable, and swimming perhaps 200 m, with the longest typically 800 m (Petrigna et al., 2022).
It's a mathematical model, and is really useful to understand how performance changes (i.e., is it from more aerobic or anaerobic development?), and also to predict performance (e.g., Morgan et al., 2019). It can be used to predict training intensities really well, and also for race performances, such as time-trials. Interested? You can use my spreadsheet below to calculate critical power or speed for your testing, and use it to predict your performance
You can also predict maximal oxygen uptake. Using a protocol and equation (Sitko, 2021) you can perform a 5 minute maximal test to predict maximal oxygen uptake. Of course, this is a prediction, so there is some error, yet this likely remains stable over time for you, allowing you to observe changes in your fitness.
And of course, there is the Lamberts sub-maximal cycling test (Lamberts et al., 2011). Whilst this can be used to monitor fatigue and performance longitudinally, serving as a great warm up, it can predict maximal oxygen uptake and 40 m TT performance...pretty neat from something you can do weekly!
Performance tests
The most valid test you can do, to tell you if you really are going better or not, is to do a performance test, or indeed, a race. So, heading out to do your 10 mile TT, 5 km run, or 1500 m swim, as fast as possible. Sounds easy? Sounds hard more like. Whilst this is most valid, it doesn't tell you how or why you've improved, gives you no insight in to strength or weakness, or training zones, unlike the other assessments, and it's absolutely maximal, meaning it's tough mentally. So, it has it's benefits, but just like the others, it also has it's negatives.
Don't forget about FTP?
If you've read this far, you might be wondering where FTP testing stands in this. I hoped I could get to the end without this, but here goes....
Functional threshold power (FTP) is representative of the power that can be sustained for 60 min (McGrath et al., 2019), and is calculated at 95% of 20 min power. So, how relevant is the power you can do for 20 min for performance, or to prescribe training on? Not very, I would suggest.
So, FTP definitely isn't physiology, and can't be interchanged with critical power (Morgan et al., 2019) or lactate threshold (Valenzuela et al., 2018). A FTP test is a performance test - average power for 20 min. So, just like any other performance tests, it can be useful, being nice and simple to understand if your performance has changed. My suggestion...if you really want to do a 20 min test, combine it with a 3-5 min effort and use the critical power sheet above to look at how you've improved your performance. Critical power (along with anaerobic capacity) is also way more useful for prescribing training, and predicting performance, than a single FTP marker.
Wrap up
Hopefully this gives you some insight in to why you might test, and what sort of test you might perform. What do you think? What's your favourite? What do you want to know? I'd love to hear, so please leave a comment.
And please get in touch if you'd to chat more about our services, including testing.
Comments