Testing Pt.1: Protocol

At RÁS, we subscribe to two training methodologies. Both are critical in our athletes’ journey towards peak performance. 

The first method requires feel, touch and finesse. It relies on an intrinsic kinaesthetic within the athlete to assess effort and intensity. Without training and racing based on proprioception, they will never truly be in control of their own performance but, through a combination of rituality and learning to trust themselves, they create the ability to race with both discipline and freedom. RPE and workout reflections are key components of this methodology.

The second method involves the use of data and metrics, both of which give us the opportunity to manipulate, manage and monitor the athlete’s training. They allow us to analyse the performance gap between current ability and the race goal so that their programme is continuously tailored and specific to where they are in their journey. Targets can be set to create controlled progression, limits put in place to protect athletes from fatigue and plans constructed for each to follow. 

And though both methodologies have their place, neither can be maximised in isolation. Instead, we must pursue a blend that allows each athlete to peak as they each paint their own masterpiece in the sporting amphitheatre. 

The first method is almost entirely intrinsic. It’s a path that can only be walked alone and an expression of purity and freedom; the romantic side of sport. Coaches and support staff sit at the periphery, helping to create opportunities for athletes to connect with themselves, encouraging self-reflection and learning at every possible turn. 

Performance metrics, on the other hand, stem from using various forms of physiological testing that are designed to unpick the athlete’s performance from their ability. For this reason, testing forms one of the central pillars at RÁS. And whilst the method we use can vary depending on the demands of a particular race, ultimately it is designed to predict the performance. 

And whilst this could lean towards a necessity of performing monthly 180km time trials (for those athletes focused on long-distance triathlons), we know this is neither plausible nor smart. 

Regular lab and lactate testing is usually embedded within our athletes’ journeys but, in the midst of a pandemic, lab testing is impossible with both close contact and blood sampling contravening government guidelines. But that hasn’t stopped us seeking a testing protocol that generates a threshold value, a performance profile and an accompanying narrative of what has led the athlete to reach that particular result.

There’s a myriad of protocols out there but, for the sake of clarity, let’s focus on bike testing while we explore the pros and cons of lab alternatives. 

We’ll start simple: the standard FTP test. It’s easy to administer and highly repeatable, but it applies a one-size-fits-all approach, applying an arbitrary figure to every testing subject. The results are certainly applicable to our training, but its drawback lies in its unsophisticated output that fails to tell us anything about how the athlete got there. 

Similar issues can be found in other tests, such as the ramp test, with the drawbacks highlighting why raw, physiological data is so useful in the lab setting alongside the testing output. 

But the search wasn’t in vain. The methodology we’ve found has allowed us to continue providing the necessary specificity in both training design and prescription. 

The protocol involves two tests, taking place over two days, with a recommended recovery day (or two) in between.

Test One

The first test is a ramp step test to failure, designed to estimate power at VO2max (PVO2max). 

The athlete’s PVO2max is calculated by analysing the last completed stage in comparison to how far they reached in the next. An accurate analysis is dependent on them pushing themselves as far as they can, even if it’s only seconds into the next block. 

Test Two

The second test maps the athlete’s critical power curve. A power curve is a graph that plots power against time. Simply put, an athlete’s power at five seconds falls off at a greater gradient to a one minute power, which falls off slightly less to the five-minute power. It is shallower still up to twenty minutes and, after thirty minutes or so, the gradient is negligible. This is known as a hyperbolic graph. 

This test is built on a three- and twelve-minute max efforts. The relationship between the effective drop off in power from the three to twelve minutes plots the power duration curve to find the asymptote of the graph; the point at which the curve is nearly level or the power an athlete could sustain for an extended period of time.  

When the athlete has completed these tests, their coach will have obtained their:

• estimated PVO2max

• three- and twelve-minute power estimate; and, 

• critical power estimate (asymptote on graph).

The final stage of testing is the most important: the calculation of the athlete’s efficiency of critical power in comparison to their PVO2max. 

Efficiency is forever the goal – realistically a 4:20 bike and 2:45 marathon are neither hard nor fast for the current long-distance triathlon world champion. Highly trained endurance athletes can access roughly 90% of their PVO2max at critical power, meaning their endurance power/pace is at a higher level, but at a comparatively lower intensity. 

Whilst race day predications are good, this efficiency value provides critical insight into the athlete’s training requirements. An athlete with an 88-90% efficiency value is unlikely to raise their critical power any further. 

On the other hand, an athlete with an efficiency value of 80% or lower is not accessing their limits and training must be engineered to suit. 

This isn’t a test designed solely to provide data to track before the test is repeated. It is configured to provide direction and cause to the training that ensues once the results are in. 

It is constructed to trigger a cycle of continuous improvement, to take athletes beyond the boundaries they have set themselves and keep them competitive throughout their season, even in these most testing of times.