Since I began coaching in 2009, the general wisdom regarding “training with a power meter” has been to perform a power test every 4-6 weeks to best monitor changes in fitness.
If you’re unfamiliar with a “power test,” here’s a quick example.
“After warming up, ride as hard as possible to achieve the highest average power possible over 20 minutes.”
The Rationale
As I see it, the rationale for regular power testing is as follows:
- Power at one’s lactate threshold (LT) strongly predicts cycling performance [1].
- Subtracting approximately 5% off a 20-minute all-out power test is a reasonable proxy for power at LT [2].
- Testing power at LT gives insight into training adaptations [1].
- Frequent testing provides more granular/actionable data to direct training.
Power Testing Isn’t Worth It
As interesting as power tests can be, I’ve found them unhelpful over a longer duration of training. Here’s why:
- Most cyclists dread (for good reason) the maximum effort required to nail a power test. In a practical sense, power testing creates significant psychological fatigue.
- Power tests cause cyclists to overinterpret “bad” results. In other words, just because you misfired on a power test doesn’t mean your training approach should be adjusted, or progress is stalled.
- Power tests deflect one’s attention from the process (where attention should be) to a thin outcome (where attention shouldn’t be) of training.
- Power tests lead cyclists to narrowly define cycling “progress” by a single duration (like 20 minutes). Cycling progress should be defined more broadly (or at least specific to the rider’s goals).
So what role, if any, should power data play in affirming progress in training? Here’s the exact system I use with athletes.
Respecting Max Effort
As a coach, my perspective is biased toward a philosophy that most cyclists are better served with a training plan that seeks to minimize the number of times a maximum or 10/10 effort is required.
In simple terms, only if/when an athlete wants to perform power testing do I ever include it in their programming. Even then, the power test is to satisfy their curiosity and generally has little bearing on the direction of training.
I use two primary methods to monitor progress when an athlete isn’t doing regular power testing.
Ride Basic: A Minimalist Guide to Maximize Your Cycling
Whether you’re a beginner eager to complete your first fondo, or a seasoned pro aiming to refresh the foundational principles of long-term cycling success, this time-efficient guide offers invaluable insights into why and how you can Ride Basic.
1: Track Relationships
Rather than relying on power testing to benchmark fitness, I prefer to track the relationship between RPE and quasi-steady-state riding conditions.
My favorite “relationship tracking” device is generally a simple tempo workout where I’ll examine an athlete’s’ post-session Rate of Perceived Exertion (RPE) against the prescription for the workout.
Example: If the workout prescription calls for 2 X 30m @ 220w/RPE 6, but the athlete executes 2 X 30m @ 225w with an RPE of 5, then I’m generally tipped off to improvements in their fitness (i.e., they rode harder with less effort).
A few more workouts with RPE tracking lower (at the same power output) than prescribed, and it’s likely time to bump up their FTP (i.e., their fitness has improved).
Pictured here is a typical tempo interval workout. If an athlete’s RPE remains the same while their power continues to creep above the prescribed target, a bump in their FTP is likely coming.
If their RPE is higher than prescribed, I can assume they’re either fatigued or our FTP estimation might be too high to guide their training correctly.
Here’s another example. Suppose a rider’s normalized power on endurance rides continues to creep up without a concurrent increase in RPE. In that case, it’s safe to assume their aerobic fitness has improved, necessitating another bump in their FTP.
If an athlete’s normalized power over the duration of an endurance ride continues to go up with RPE remaining the same, I’m comfortable taking this as further evidence of aerobic fitness improvements and another vote in favor of bumping up FTP.
The benefit of tracking the relationship between RPE and power output over varying durations is that it emphasizes training exactly where it should be: on the process of accumulating days, weeks, and months of consistency rather than frequently reaching for a higher number on a power test.
2: Cultivate Accidental PR’s
One way to reduce psychological fatigue in training is to confine strenuous efforts to the most motivating ride environments, such as races, group rides, and KOM attempts.
Power PRs that occur “accidentally” in the flow of a competitive environment are the preferred data points for all the coaching I do.
Here’s why:
- Accidental PRs occur naturally on your own time. Trying to force PRs on a power test requires multiple variables (fatigue, motivation, nutrition) to align perfectly to produce a personal record.
- Accidental PRs nearly always reveal an actual best effort since competition brings out the best in most cyclists (while generating less psychological effort than riding solo) [3].
- Accidental PRs reflect a cyclist remaining present during training or competition rather than attempting to hit an arbitrary benchmark on their cycling computer.
Here’s an example of a custom chart built to show the top 10 best efforts over the durations of 5m, 20m, 40m NP, 60m, 90m (alternatively you can track whatever durations are most specific to your performance objectives).
Tracking multiple durations casts a wide net to observe improvements in fitness that occur naturally over the course of training and competition, without the need to perform a specific test over any one duration.
Key Takeaways
- Respect that max efforts draw heavily on a limited supply of physical and psychological energy.
- Instead of relying on fragile power tests, develop a robust system to track the relationships between RPE and sub-maximal training alongside keeping track of accidental PRs that occur naturally in the flow of training.
- Use RPE and accidental PRs to adjust training intensity and confirm the effectiveness of your training strategy.
References
- Tanner, R.K., C.J. Gore, and S. Australian Institute of, Physiological tests for elite athletes. 2nd ed. 2013, Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Champaign, IL.
- McGrath, E., et al., Is the FTP Test a Reliable, Reproducible and Functional Assessment Tool in Highly-Trained Athletes? International journal of exercise science, 2019. 12(4): p. 1334-1345.
- Hettinga, F.J., M.J. Konings, and G.J. Pepping, The Science of Racing against Opponents: Affordance Competition and the Regulation of Exercise Intensity in Head-to-Head Competition. Front Physiol, 2017. 8: p. 118.