Andrew R. Coggan, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist in the Cardiovascular Imaging Labo-ratory at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, MO. An internationally-rec-ognized exercise physiologist, Dr. Coggan has authored or coauthored over 120 originalresearch papers, review articles, book chapters, etc., in numerous scientific publications on di-verse topics such as the effects of carbohydrate feedings on cycling performance, the physio-logical adaptations to endurance exercise training, and the effects of aging on musclemetabolism during exercise. His work has had an significant impact on the field of exercisephysiology, with Dr. Coggan’s publications having been cited over 2,300 times in total and eightof his papers qualifying as Citation Classics (i.e., cited more than 100 times each).

In addition to these professional endeavors, Dr. Coggan has been a competitive cyclistfor over 30 years, and still races in the master ranks. He has therefore also authored a numberof articles, book chapters, manuals, and one book intended for coaches and athletes, and iswidely acknowledged as one of the world’s leading experts on the training of cyclists using dataobtained with bicycle-mounted powermeters.-ed

he question of lab testing is a frequently asked question at USA Cycling coachingeducation seminars. Performance Conditioning Cycling present the following in-terview with Andy Coggin recognized as one of the leading experts in this field tohelp you make important decision in this area.

PC: Why would a coach recommend lab testing to an athlete, pros/cons?

AC: In general, field testing (using a powermeter) is usually more accurate ("the best predictor of performance is performanceitself"). There are, however, situations in which laboratory-based testing provides some advantages. For example, the controlled en-vironment of a laboratory can make testing possible at times (e.g., in the dead of winter) and/or in places (e.g., in a crowded urbanenvironment) where field tests cannot easily be performed. In addition, many laboratory-based tests do not require that the athletesproduce a maximal effort, which may be helpful when testing individuals recovering from an injury or illness, or when a maximaleffort simply isn't doesn't fit into the training plan. Of course, for athletes who don't use a powermeter, laboratory-based testing canprovide important insight into their relative strengths and weaknesses and/or the effectiveness of their training program in ways thatcan't be obtained simply by looking at race results.

There are, of course, disadvantages to laboratory-based testing. These include not only the cost and inconvenience, but alsothe fact that in all too many instances those with the knowledge on how to appropriately administer such tests lack the depth of un-derstanding needed to really be able to interpret them for the coach or athletes in a highly useful, sports-specific manner. In addition,because much has been made of certain physiological traits (e.g., VO2max) as predictors of performance, athletes may experienceunnecessary anxiety before and sometimes after such tests, fearing that they won't "measure up".

PC: What tests would be the most meaningful based on athlete’s ability levels beginning intermediate and advanced and events com-peted track v. road etc.?

With Andrew Richard Coggan, Ph.D. Exercise Physiologist, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO

Andy R. Coggan, PhD

CONDITIONING

T

AC: The primary physiological determinants of endurance performance ability are VO2max (the best measure of cardiovascular fit-ness), lactate threshold (an indicator of "muscular metabolic fitness", or how aerobically adapted your muscles are to that particularactivity), and economy or efficiency of movement. Fortunately, all of these can be determined in the laboratory during a single in-cremental ("ramp") exercise test to failure, during which respiratory gas exchange is measured (to determine VO2max and submaximaleconomy/efficiency) and blood samples are obtained (to determine LT). This, then, would be principal test one would administer toany endurance cyclist (including endurance track cyclists). If maximal testing is contraindicated, then the test can simply be terminatedonce the athlete has clearly exceeded their LT, but before they have achieved VO2max.

Although VO2max/LT/efficiency are the most important determinants of endurance performance, cycling is a sport that re-quires significant short-term power as well. Thus, additional tests to determine A) maximal neuromuscular power and B) anaerobiccapacity can provide useful information, especially for endurance athletes whose performance depends heavily on these parametersas well on as aerobic ability (e.g., a pursuiter). Maximal neuromuscular power is best measured using a special ergometer developedby Dr. Jim Martin, whereas the "gold standard" method for measuring anaerobic capacity is to determine maximal accumulated O2deficit (MAOD). Few laboratories provide this sort of testing to athletes, however, so an imperfect-but-more-practical alternative isthe well-known Wingate test.

For non-endurance track cyclists (e.g., match sprinters), there isn't much utility in knowing VO2max, etc., so really only theresults of the latter tests would be of great interest.

PC: How should the coach break down data, communicate data in a meaningful fashion to the athlete and use the results in trainingplanning? What is the value of retesting?

AC: "One off" tests can be useful for determining an individual athlete's relative strengths and weaknesses, for talent ID purposes,etc., but the greatest benefit always derives from repeat testing. Such information is useful when trying to quantify a rider's progressand can aid in "fine tuning" a training program to fit a particular rider's physiology. However, given the costs (in terms of money,time, and possible psychological stress) of laboratory-based testing, such measurements should usually be limited to (at most) just afew times per year (if that). Perhaps most importantly of all, coaches should stress to their riders that such testing is simply a meansto an end (i.e., improved race performance), and not an end unto itself. In particular, because there are so many factors that enter intoperformance that aren't adequately captured via such testing (e.g., tactical ability), riders need to be coached to not place undue em-phasis on the results of such testing.

PC: What would be the thought process to help the coach decide to invest in testing equipment vs. “outsourcing” the testing process.

AC: There are at least three factors that a coach should consider when deciding whether they want to conduct such tests themselves,vs. outsourcing the task to someone/someplace else (e.g., a university exercise physiology laboratory). These are A) time, B) money,and C) liability. In many cases, the time and money that a coach would need to invest in educating themselves on how to conductand interpret such physiological testing and in acquiring the necessary equipment is far too great to justify the effort. However, forthose who have a strong interest or background in the area, equipping themselves to conduct such tests may in fact make sense, es-pecially if they are able to establish their expertise to the point that other coaches are willing to send athletes to them.

Should a coach decide to go in this direction, the first priority would be to learn as much as possible about how to properly(and safely) conduct and interpret various laboratory-based tests, typically by obtaining advanced training in (and perhaps even adegree from) a university-level exercise physiology program. Without such knowledge there is really no point in testing, so that ac-quiring the needed equipment is actually of secondary importance. Indeed, this is probably the most common mistake that is made:in their enthusiasm to offer this service to athletes, coaches will often purchase expensive equipment and begin administering varioustests without fully understanding what they are doing. This is not only a waste of effort, but can create unnecessary confusion shouldtests not be administered proficiently or test results be mis- or overinterpreted. Indeed, since laboratory-style testing is not withoutat least a small degree of risk (e.g., from performing maximal exercise, or from handling of infectious waste), in the extreme suchan approach may actually be dangerous to all involved.

On the other hand, if a coach decides to outsource the testing to someone else, the most important step is in identifying anindividual or facility that can be trusted to provide data that is not only "clean" (i.e., accurate and precise), but can also provide “as-sistance” in interpreting the results. The reason that I emphasize "assistance" is that, quite often, those administering such tests lackthe level of sports-specific knowledge necessary to obtain maximum benefit. Thus, it is incumbent upon a coach to educate themselvesabout the testing procedures, what the data mean and how they can be used, etc., to the degree necessary to make certain that, in theend, the combined knowledge of all of those involved (i.e., athlete, coach, test administrator) is sufficient to assure the data are putto greatest possible use. This in turn implies the need to establish an ongoing, positive working relationship between the coach andthe testing facility.

More Information Please! Contact Andy at acoggan@earthlink.net