Testing testing testing. It seems to be big these days with the advent of more gadgetry and more knowledge in the multisport world. With so many methods of testing and so many parameters to measure, it can be confusing for both athletes and coaches to decide which test is relevant to what they want to achieve.

I recently sat down with Exercise Physiologist and USAT Level II Coach Eric Prager of Skaneateles NY to learn not only what is important, but why.

We have a lot of things to test these days, Lactate Threshold, Threshold Heart Rate, Vo2 Max, Functional Threshold power….. it can be daunting to athletes, especially new ones. In your opinion as an Exercise Physiologist and USAT Coach, what are the most important numbers to get, and why?

There are many tests and testing protocol on the market. As well as many tools designed to help athletes with their training concepts. Clearly, if a test is not valid or is difficult to reproduce with consistency then it holds little weight.

Each of these testing variables identified is both valuable to training and can demonstrate progress with re-testing. Evaluating more than one variable such as the four listed, enables a practitioner to look at an athlete's overall progress. These four values in conjunction with one another will help identify what might be a limiter to one's training and performance.

For instance a lack of strength or power might be realized with a low functional threshold power test score. Or a lack of training at threshold will be realized if the individual has a poor performance on the lactate threshold test. The practitioner will be able to determine if any of these variables has become a limiter to one's performance and will use the knowledge to help guide future training protocol.

As an exercise physiologist, I would have to say that an individual who performs a VO2 max test on a bike with a power meter/Computrainer can gain all these variables with one test. That saves money. We typically would gather all of these numbers in two tests, by performing a Lactate Threshold Test and then a VO2 Max Test after. Separating the tests gives us more accurate numbers. However, with the technology of a metabolic cart (a machine that evaluates the ratio of the gases one expires) the machine picks up a predicted aerobic threshold and the predicted lactate threshold in addition to one's VO2 Max. Because the practitioner is recording heart rate and watts during the intervals of the test, we are also able to determine the threshold heart rate and functional threshold power. Clearly the more serious an athlete is, the more valuable it would be to split these tests; however, for the average competitor, the VO2 on the metabolic cart will suffice.

Many athletes obtain an initial test for baseline numbers. Based on your answers above, how often do you suggest retesting?

Frequency would be based on a few variables. Field tests can be performed every 4-6 weeks. A more comprehensive lab test on a metabolic cart might occur less frequently 2-4 times annually. Largely the value of testing depends on how closely an individual will be following a program based on the outcome measures of the tests and how much the program will be built based on the outcome measures of the tests.

If an athletes is just 'training,' a less frequent assessment is likely sufficient; however, if there is an ongoing goal to develop ones training protocol, based on the four variables derived from the test(s), then it would be relevant to test after each training block.

Many athletes will perform ramp tests on computrainers at home. Do you think athletes who self-field tests can attain the same results?

There are pretty high correlations with various field tests and laboratory tests. However, performing your own tests, with little formal knowledge or controls on variables would be like doing your own plumbing with no previous experience. Sure you can do it; however, you might spring a leak or two. Over time, the more one practices a newly acquired skill the better they will become.

For some, self-testing provides a certain level of freedom. For others self-testing is overwhelming. Testing is individualistic and should fit the individuals comfort zone. I preface that a test is only valid if it is performed accurately and with consistency. However, individuals must also realize that without benchmarks it is difficult to alter training protocol to achieve real results, so I am a huge fan of testing for motivation, adherence to training, and guidance.

We see a lot of athletes spend money on races, bikes and travel, yet many won't spend money on this kind of testing, how do you convince them it's important?

It is ironic that many triathletes try to buy their speed, spending gross amounts of money to be competitive, or keep up with more talented friends. Often these individuals will spend $600+ a month on personal training for their kids, but bulk at coaching or testing fees for themselves...at a fraction of that cost. It is clearly the responsibility of the coaches and the industry (triathlon, cycling, running, etc...) to help guide the individuals to the right program.

Gadget-geeks are often the most willing to spend money on these types of tests. They have researched the meaning of each test, they understand the purpose and how they will apply it to their training and they have purchased the devices that they feel will best help guide them to their goals. They are also inherently curious and are eager to retest and see progress.

The masses on the other hand, find testing intimidating or want to get into shape or lose weight before they complete such a test. Often participants incur injuries and setbacks repeatedly and limit their ability to truly get to their goals. I find an injured athlete to be the most willing to listen and most hungry to do whatever it takes to get back on their feet and train smart.

The reality is performing these tests provides the data to help athletes get the most out of their training and the most out of their equipment (i.e. aero helmet), while minimize their injury risks. All participants in endurance sports, should complete these tests at least ONCE. This will provide an accurate baseline to help guide their training programs moving forward.

Some athletes like to learn from their mistakes, others like to be guided to the top of the charts.

Are there… if there are any… in your personal experience major differences between men and women when it comes to willingness to test?

It would be easy to define genders with a large brush stoke. Instead, let me say that both males and females can benefit immensely. I think more science, business or analytical-oriented individuals appreciate the value of these tests and are more likely to participate, but so too are individuals who desire greatness with minimal training availability. I think the variability is more lifestyle and cognitive related than gender.

Eric Prager has degrees in Sports Management and Exercise Science and is a Level II, USA Triathlon Coach and Certified Strength and Conditioning Coach. He is an owner/partner of Endurance Monster Retail and Performance Center and can be reached at eric.prager@endurancemonster.com.