I had posted a thread about the accuracy of the Zwift ramp test compared to a real lab test. I just realized that I should have put that thread in the Oxygen Depraved section and didn't...oops.

In doing a quick scan I didn't see a thread that focused on how any of these test correlate to real world training and racing. There is likely a thread buried deeper in this section than I bother to looked.

Back in the day when I did a fare amount of coaching I used to find myself in conversations about testing protocols, how the results are best used, what tests are better, what numbers are better, etc, etc.

First off I will have to quote the famous @SteveP when it comes to numbers, "the only numbers that count are what place you came in. I don't care about your 300 watts or 1600 watts. The numbers I want to know about are 1st, 2nd, and 3rd".
For those that don't know @SteveP started and has overseen one of the strongest ongoing east coast U23 teams that has produced a number of domestic and world pros.

The answer to the questions about testing protocols and what numbers were the best to base training/racing on was always "it depends".
It depends what you are trying to ultimately do.
A 1600 watt sprint didn't mean much in the MTB world in the 90s when our races were 2 1/2 - 3 1/2 hours long.
Being able to hold 300 watts for 5 hours doesn't mean much to a crit racer.
Being able to do 400 watts for 10 minutes 4 hours into a road race doesn't mean anything to a cat 5 CX racer who is on course for 35 minutes.


Lets say you do the Zwift step test and you get a result of 250 watts. Can you do the test again right after you do their warm down and get the same number? Can you do it a third time? Four times in a row?
If person A can only do the test once, the number is still 250. If person B can do the test 4 times, their number is also 250.

The lab tests are great for getting physiological information but those number do not equal what someone should do for training. The same could be said for the Zwift step test since if seems to correlate nicely to a real lab test.

20 minute test, 60 minutes tests, lab tests, Zwift tests, Trainer Road tests, ...
There are all interesting and one way to track progress because you can replicate them several times over a season/year/decade. They are also good when establishing training.

The challenge I see is that taking tests, grabbing online training programs, and plugging in your numbers is a very generic way to go about improving. While much better than not having a plan and just pounding yourself into the ground everyday, it is not the same as working with someone to come up with a plan that aligns test results, personal goals, efforts required to reach those goals, the reality of reaching those goals, available time, etc, etc.


My 2 cents.
In other words, testing is not training. And training is not racing.