Cycling assessments: what tests reveal and how to turn results into decisions

A test does not just need to produce a number. It should help decide what to train, how to regulate intensity and whether a capacity is changing. Friel organizes the chapter for this purpose: knowing the starting point and making evolution verifiable.

The initial care is to choose the question. A good result in a few seconds’ effort does not respond to the ability to sustain a long climb. And a laboratory value does not alone describe the ability to position itself in a competition.

The road test described in this edition

The 4th edition uses an effort of 30 minutes. The average heart rate of the 20 final minutes works as an estimate of the heart rate of threshold. The average power of the full period informs the performance of thirty minutes, called CP30 in the work.

This reference is different from the twenty-minute test discussed in the 5th edition of the triathlon book. Mixing the durations and corrections of different protocols creates a result without based on the method to be applied.

The test is demanding and depends on appropriate environment and conditions. The description here explains the reading of the results, without replacing the preparation, evaluation of readiness or complete instructions of the book.

Power profile shows different capabilities

Friel proposes to evaluate efforts of 12 seconds, 1 minute, 6 minutes, 12 minutes and 30 minutes, preferably distributed on different days. The goal is to build a curve that shows the relationship between production and duration.

A cyclist can have great short power and sharp fall in long efforts. Another one may present lower peak and production relatively more stable with the increase in duration. The profile helps to relate the athlete to the demands of competitions.

CP6 and CP30, in this nomenclature, are powers per duration. They should not be assumed as parameters identical to those of any contemporary critical power model.

What is measured and what is estimated?

The chapter suggests estimating higher duration powers from CP30: withdraw 5% to CP60, then 2.5% to CP90 and more 5% to CP180. The author himself acknowledges that these extensions may be inaccurate.

Editorial example: starting from CP30 of 280 W, the calculations produce 266 W for CP60, about 259 W for CP90 and 246 W for CP180. This does not demonstrate that the cyclist will actually support 246 W for three hours. Extrapolation does not measure tolerance to duration, feeding, position or effort distribution in this task.

There is also a passage in case studies that approximates a thirty-minute solo effort to a 60-minute competition for the difference in motivation. The two approaches should not be treated as exact and universal equivalences. It is necessary to inform which criterion is being used.

How do you recognize an improvement?

The chapter shows that power can increase without heart rate threshold changing in the same proportion. Therefore, pursuing a higher frequency is not the objective of the program. Producing more under comparable conditions can be more informative.

To compare evaluations, register previous recovery, equipment, route, environment and execution. Getting started too fast can reduce the test result and create an apparent later improvement that partly reflects learning pace.

The same criterion is valid for repetition: comparing what was done in a rested state with what was done very fatigued does not isolate the adaptation.

Editorial example: from result to priority

An athlete has good production in one minute, but loses contact in climbs of ten to fifteen minutes. The profile suggests investigating the sustained production in this range and the distribution of effort, rather than adding more sprints because they are his preferred activity.

The test does not solve the whole explanation. Its role is to narrow the question and offer an indicator to follow up the later work. Evaluate, interpret, choose an intervention and reevaluate are parts of the same process. A number without consequence in planning is accumulated information, not yet a training tool.

Reference: FRIEL, Joe. The Cyclist’s Training Bible. 4th ed. VeloPress, 2009. Chapter 5, “Testing”. Pages in the PDF file: 102–136. A selective synthesis written in our own words. Examples labeled as editorial are Enduran-se’s own examples; they are not additional cases reported by the author.

Cada um no seu ritmo. Juntos no caminho.