PDA

View Full Version : GPP testing


Brandon Oto
09-01-2009, 01:45 PM
For some time, I've been interested in establishing a way of testing and quantifying this ephemeral, know-it-when-you-see-it notion of GPP. One of the things CrossFit did that was cool is to actually define it -- I don't like their work capacity definition, but there's not much else available. Specific fitness? No problem. General fitness? What is it?

In any case, I did some work with Joe Cavazos on developing and scoring an actual series of tests to assess GPP. It's all explained so I won't belabor it too much here, but I'm very interested in any feedback or suggestions, as this is mostly original stuff that hasn't been well-tested yet. Just some regurgitation from our melons.

Have at it: http://gpp.degreesofclarity.com/

Harry Munro
09-01-2009, 02:58 PM
Interesting stuff. I've always thought of GPP in terms of the CV system being in 'good enough' shape and not as something that could be measurable.

Brandon Oto
09-01-2009, 07:12 PM
Interesting stuff. I've always thought of GPP in terms of the CV system being in 'good enough' shape and not as something that could be measurable.

There's kind of two senses of the term that get used and that's one of them -- it's what powerlifters usually mean by GPP. This is the other one, that I guess CrossFit largely popularized, the sense of general well-rounded fitness for no specific task.

Edit: oh, and sorry for the name of the damned thing, we really couldn't think up anything more reasonable. Names are not my strong suit.

Patrick Donnelly
09-01-2009, 10:58 PM
I skimmed over the opener page* looking for an actual reason for the tests, and this is the closest I came to finding one.

Our purpose is to establish a small number of standard tests, each of which is both meaningful in its own right (i.e. running speed is important) as well as indicative of one’s broad physical capabilities in a category of fitness (i.e. running speed means you’re well-conditioned), and the combination of which can produce a quantitative assessment of one’s broad, general physical fitness. Ideally, using these tests, an athlete should be able to see where his capacity ranks within various categories of physical ability, and compare that score against his scores in other categories, or against itself over time, or against other athletes’ scores for competitive purposes.

This says what the tests do and how you can use them, but it doesn't really say why you should use them. For example, why do you need to know specifically how your flexibility ranks up against your muscular endurance? (Especially considering that the rankings, while reasonable, have been designed by those who, to the extend of my knowledge, have no professional work in the kinesiology/athletics.) Are you supposed to vary your training depending on your scores to achieve some desired result? Will having a numerical score as opposed to a general idea of the relative rankings really provide some significant advantage? Is there really a point in competing against other "athletes" to see who's "better" at a battery of fitness tests? If so, is there any particular reason one ought to these particular standardized tests when there are literally infinite options available? What relative rankings are supposed to be best or most desirable? Is there even an answer to that question? If not, then why then why bother testing them?




* I won't lie, you tend to write a lot. More than most people, myself included, are willing to read fully. It's all thought-out stuff, but once again, we return to the matter of purpose/reason.

No harm meant here, as I see how my comments may be taken a bit negatively, but I really think that too many people (not just you) put too much time into contemplating exercise when that time would be better spent actually doing exercise - or, if you've already got enough exercise, working on general self-betterment though taking on intellectual, spiritual, or social endeavors in order to round out overall health and quality of life. Hell, maybe some of those three should even come before the exercise.


I think that if every fitness-oriented webforum were to shut down, six months later, very few trainees would find that they had made little to no progress during that time.

Harry Munro
09-02-2009, 06:12 AM
I think that if every fitness-oriented webforum were to shut down, six months later, very few trainees would find that they had made little to no progress during that time.

Truer words have never been spoken. The forum thing really becomes a habit.

Scott Kustes
09-02-2009, 06:23 AM
Seems reasonable, but your numbers on the broad jump are way off. The world record is 12.05 ft. Your top ranking is 13'.

You also need to do conversions on your 100m times. Hand-times are notoriously inaccurate. As such, you should add 0.3-0.4 to the time shown on the stopwatch. Unless you get a computerized time at an actual track meet, the times will appear faster than what was actually run. Example: at a meet this season, I was hand-timed at 10.9, but the computer came back with 11.29.

Not sure what you mean by this: "Due to the mixed-domain nature of the sprint, the Speed tests are prioritized. Only the rope skip is mandatory." - Are you saying that you prioritize the ability to skip rope for "speed" over the ability to...run fast?

No quibbles with anything else, though I question the value of flexibility versus the others. If you're flexible enough to not injure yourself in athletics, you're probably flexible enough.

Brandon Oto
09-02-2009, 09:52 AM
Seems reasonable, but your numbers on the broad jump are way off. The world record is 12.05 ft. Your top ranking is 13'.

Fair enough; I think we "rounded up" to 13 for simplicity's sake. But you're right, that's a big gap. I'll nudge it down.

You also need to do conversions on your 100m times. Hand-times are notoriously inaccurate. As such, you should add 0.3-0.4 to the time shown on the stopwatch. Unless you get a computerized time at an actual track meet, the times will appear faster than what was actually run. Example: at a meet this season, I was hand-timed at 10.9, but the computer came back with 11.29.

Sound point. But is the error introduced by hand-timing always downward?

Not sure what you mean by this: "Due to the mixed-domain nature of the sprint, the Speed tests are prioritized. Only the rope skip is mandatory." - Are you saying that you prioritize the ability to skip rope for "speed" over the ability to...run fast?

Basically: yes. Because we're mainly using the Dynamax categories, and to them "speed" is how quickly you can repeat a motion. So as goofy as the rope skipping is, aside from technique (which is no small potato, admittedly) it should be limited mainly by how fast you can move your little tootsies. The run, on the other hand, is heavily dependent on your power (a different domain) and strength (different again), and yes, technique; so it's kind of not an ideal test. The reasons we still considered it a speed test were:

1. Other factors aside, you WON'T have a fast 100m time UNLESS you are cycling your stride rapidly. Sure, it's not the only component, and sure, there's a ceiling to it, but we can probably say reliably that the guy running 10s is moving his feet quickly (and correspondingly, his arms).

2. Running short distances fast is admittedly a more intuitive definition of "speed" than the Dynamax one, so I don't mind a small compromise

All of that said I'm not very comfortable with the Speed category as a whole, so I'm far from married to those tests.

No quibbles with anything else, though I question the value of flexibility versus the others. If you're flexible enough to not injure yourself in athletics, you're probably flexible enough.

Yeah... but more is helpful. Why, just yesterday I blocked a shot on goal with one knee, kicked a man in the head, snatch-grip deadlifted from blocks with a neutral spine, heel-hooked my way over a wall, reenacted the entire Kama Sutra, and squirmed out of a shoulder crank. Busy day.

Okay, not really, but you see my point. And I see yours, which points to a larger one -- many people, due to personal philosophies well thought-out or otherwise, will disagree with equal weighting to each domain and prefer some degree of prioritization. For instance, if I could extract the inner squishie-wishies from a CrossFitter's brain, he'd probably consider muscular and metabolic endurance the most important of these, strength and power secondary, speed and flexibility way down the list. And so forth.

You could incorporate such weighting by calculating overall scores your own way; I'd probably just use a multiplier for each domain score. We haven't given the method or any widgets for doing it but it's pretty straightforward.

Brandon Oto
09-02-2009, 10:10 AM
Patrick: strictly speaking I don't care why you use any of this. The real motivation beneath it is conceptual -- it's creating a measurable definition of GPP (or general fitness).

If this sounds familiar it should be -- it's what CrossFit did, more or less. The trouble is that I don't think their definition captures it well at all, so what else is there? If we discard that we're back to not much.

Here's the trick. It's not too hard to measure someone's strength, for instance. Or their endurance. There are lots of ways. You can bicker over which tests do it best, and that's part of what we tried to determine here. But it's straightforward.

But the gambit of GPP is that it crosses multiple TYPES of fitness, where not only do some cover different ground than others, but may be completely unrelated or indeed antagonistic. So you can still test them both -- but what do you do next? You can say you have such-and-such competence in one domain, and so-and-so in another, but what do they have to do with each other? How can a 500lb deadlift talk to a 4:00 mile?

So if there's anything original being done here, it's this: we've scored each test in such a way to standardize the results into a common, 0-10 scale. The reason each such scale is on the same grounds is that they're all set up the same way; 10 is the best that homo sapiens seems capable of ever achieving, 0 is the worst we would plausibly call non-disfunctional. (For instance, 0 for most of the running tests is a walking pace. Anyone should be able to do that who's not damaged.) It's rough, but it's common ground.

Having done that, you can now compare domains -- you can say, yes sir, I am "more fit" or "better" in strength than in endurance. Or you can combine them however you please, and say, for instance, yes sir -- I am more fit OVERALL than I was last year. Or, heaven forbid, I am more fit overall than you are.

Now, why should this be useful? Well, maybe it's not. Maybe it's navel-gazing at best and dick-stroking at worst. But many people seem fond of doing exactly the above (cf. "But what's his Fran time?"), and even the most world-weary can probably find some value in it; for instance, comparing different programs or styles of training (what you're doing now versus what you were doing in February) and deciding which did more for your fitness. Or you could make a yearly competition out of it and award money.

It's just data, is the point. Before, data to represent overall fitness not only did not exist but was somewhat impossible. Now, just like stepping on the scale, you can get concrete numbers. Do with 'em what you want, even if it be nothing, but it's the necessary starting point for a lot else.

At the end of the day it's an interesting exercise for me, and as a philosophy guy defining things is a worthwhile pastime in its own right.

(By the way, I recently ran into some information on decathlon scoring and I understand they may use some similar methods. Haven't looked into it much but they may have insight.)

Scott Kustes
09-02-2009, 10:43 AM
Sound point. But is the error introduced by hand-timing always downward?
Pretty much. Humans tend to anticipate the finish but be slow on the start. With the timer yelling "go," you'll reduce some error, but you're still not going to get accuracy and especially not to 1/100th of a second.

T&F doesn't even look at anything beyond the 1/10 spot on a hand-time. The rule for the 100m is "take hand-time, round up to the next tenth, then add .24" due to distance from the gun and the facts of how long it takes nerve impulses to travel through the human body.

Basically: yes. Because we're mainly using the Dynamax categories, and to them "speed" is how quickly you can repeat a motion. So as goofy as the rope skipping is, aside from technique (which is no small potato, admittedly) it should be limited mainly by how fast you can move your little tootsies. The run, on the other hand, is heavily dependent on your power (a different domain) and strength (different again), and yes, technique; so it's kind of not an ideal test. The reasons we still considered it a speed test were:

1. Other factors aside, you WON'T have a fast 100m time UNLESS you are cycling your stride rapidly. Sure, it's not the only component, and sure, there's a ceiling to it, but we can probably say reliably that the guy running 10s is moving his feet quickly (and correspondingly, his arms).

2. Running short distances fast is admittedly a more intuitive definition of "speed" than the Dynamax one, so I don't mind a small compromise

All of that said I'm not very comfortable with the Speed category as a whole, so I'm far from married to those tests.
The 100m is pretty much the universally accepted standard of speed and one which few people can argue with. Until someone votes the Olympic Alternating-Foot Rope Skipping Champion as the "world's fastest man," I think Usain Bolt has it pretty well tied up. :D

Brandon Oto
09-02-2009, 12:46 PM
Pretty much. Humans tend to anticipate the finish but be slow on the start. With the timer yelling "go," you'll reduce some error, but you're still not going to get accuracy and especially not to 1/100th of a second.

T&F doesn't even look at anything beyond the 1/10 spot on a hand-time. The rule for the 100m is "take hand-time, round up to the next tenth, then add .24" due to distance from the gun and the facts of how long it takes nerve impulses to travel through the human body.

Okay, I dig it. We'll go through and dial the curve down for that one. I'll probably still let people input with whatever degree of accuracy they think they have, but that's up to their judgment.

The 100m is pretty much the universally accepted standard of speed and one which few people can argue with. Until someone votes the Olympic Alternating-Foot Rope Skipping Champion as the "world's fastest man," I think Usain Bolt has it pretty well tied up. :D

Yeah. We gave some thought to just dropping the Dynamax "speed" and making it something like this. But again, the issue is mixing domains. Given that we're already testing strength and power elsewhere, specifically what does the sprint add -- meaning, if your strength/power numbers don't quite correlate to your sprint time, what could the extra element be? It seems like it's going to be either

1. Speed, meaning your cycle time
2. Bodyweight, which SHOULD already be adjusted for, as both Power and Strength have bodyweight tests
3. Technique

I guess you could make a meaningful argument that the technique of running fast is a useful enough one that it's worth testing for. But it seems a bit specific.

If we could come up with some good tests for "agility," I don't think I'd mind combining them with a max-speed and -acceleration test like the 100m and calling it a new category like "rapidity of locomotion" (:rolleyes:)... but we had a bitch of a time thinking of stuff for agility or the other neurological ones.

Patrick Donnelly
09-02-2009, 06:51 PM
If this sounds familiar it should be -- it's what CrossFit did, more or less. The trouble is that I don't think their definition captures it well at all, so what else is there? If we discard that we're back to not much. [1]

But the gambit of GPP is that it crosses multiple TYPES of fitness, where not only do some cover different ground than others, but may be completely unrelated or indeed antagonistic. So you can still test them both -- but what do you do next? You can say you have such-and-such competence in one domain, and so-and-so in another, but what do they have to do with each other? How can a 500lb deadlift talk to a 4:00 mile? [2]

Having done that, you can now compare domains -- you can say, yes sir, I am "more fit" or "better" in strength than in endurance.[3] Or you can combine them however you please, and say, for instance, yes sir -- I am more fit OVERALL than I was last year. Or, heaven forbid, I am more fit overall than you are.

Now, why should this be useful? Well, maybe it's not. Maybe it's navel-gazing at best and dick-stroking at worst. But many people seem fond of doing exactly the above (cf. "But what's his Fran time?"), and even the most world-weary can probably find some value in it; for instance, comparing different programs or styles of training (what you're doing now versus what you were doing in February) and deciding which did more for your fitness. [4] Or you could make a yearly competition out of it and award money. [5]

It's just data, is the point. Before, data to represent overall fitness not only did not exist but was somewhat impossible. Now, just like stepping on the scale, you can get concrete numbers. Do with 'em what you want, even if it be nothing, but it's the necessary starting point for a lot else. [6]

1: But why does there have to be anything else? Are there throngs of people out there somewhere crying for a standardized series of fitness tests? If so, I'm sorry to say that anyone who may really want that sort of thing is probably already plenty satisfied with the CrossFit "Girls" workouts or the set of standards from CrossFit North. (I think it's CFN. It's the lv1-4 thing.) Not that their standards are any less arbitrary or have any more professional backing to them - but they are more popular and already fulfill any potential need. I give you credit for being more concise in your tests though.

2: I dunno. Why do they have to relate to each other? Do you have to relate them? Really, if you have one, that's great. If you have both, that's even more awesome. If two separate people each have one, then that's great for both of them. They've both accomplished things in their own right, but I don't think there is really a way to compare them, nor should there be a need for one.

3: You don't need tests to tell you what you're better at. I'm far better at strength than I am at endurance. I just know that since that's how my training is - strength based. From the occasional dabbling in my workouts, I know that I'm no good at sets of reps over 10 or at very prolonged, high-rep cardio circuits, mostly because I don't do them with any sort of frequency. You're good at what you do, unless you do everything, in which case you're good at nothing. Isn't that generally well-known already?

4: Don't people typically have goals with which to evaluate their programs already? I'd hope so. Without goals, I really don't think you can follow a "program" either, since a program actually has to be designed around something.

5: That's been done, as you know, for better or for worse.

6: The starting point for what else? Once again, why is it "necessary?" Data for data's sake is pointless. The one segment of the news that annoys me the most is the daily weather report - even more than all the blips about bullshit like the Octomom. The guy gets up there in front of his greenscreen and waves his arms around for a while and tells you about hi's and lo's and all that stuff, but no one really gives a shit. Do you even know what it means when there's an area of high pressure moving in, or do you even have to know? Then he goes and tells you what the temperatures will be like for the next few days and if it'll rain. "81, 82, and 81 degrees for the holiday weekend," or something gibberish like that. But what are those numbers supposed to mean to me? Spare me five minutes of my life you'd otherwise waste with your statistics and just tell me that "temperatures this weekend will all be a bit hotter than they were today, but there won't be much humidity, and there's a good chance of rain on Tuesday morning." Then for goodness' sake don't tell me what the weather was like today! I know what the weather was like today! I was outside! I experienced it!

Ok. I got a little bit rambly there at the end, but the point is the same. There's no need to make data just so you can have data. That's silly.

Brandon Oto
09-02-2009, 08:35 PM
I appreciate the more Zenlike approach, Patrick. And again, to answer your question: perhaps there is no need. Clearly, you did not need this. In which case, ignore. Philosophers have been known to discuss the nature of your left nostril so there's really no telling us where to let up.

As I said, this sort of thing interests me. That's reason enough. The fact that CrossFit qua Glassman make a very big deal out of defining and quantifying fitness, however, suggests that it's an important notion to at least some people; those are the sort of people who would probably share my interest. For instance, I just watched a video on the CF site where Glassman explains how the CrossFit Games is the fundamental test of the fittest athlete in the world. This would perhaps be true according to their definition of fitness, and is almost certainly not true according to mine. Again, you may not give a shit, and that's fine. But that's the kind of thing where definitions make a difference.

Donald Lee
09-02-2009, 11:39 PM
I haven't thoroughly looked over everything, but I'd like to make a few comments.

1. There are many standard tests to evaluate various aspects of fitness. For example, if you just looked in the NSCA's Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning, you'd find almost every test you'd need.

2. You need to remember validity and reliability on every one of your tests, but through the internet, I guess you have to do with what you have. I don't know if you addressed it, but if multiple tests were to be done on the same day, they should be done in the following order: flexibility, power, strength, speed, muscular endurance, and then metabolic endurance.

3. You do not have any test that utilizes the Stretch Shortening Cycle, like the standing triple jump.

4. IMO, the rankings should have the novice, intermediate, advanced, elite scale, so you can have a basis for understanding the numbers. I know you guys didn't want to do that, but the tests are pretty lacking without it.

5. For the muscular endurance, there's no need for a 2-minute test for the pullups. One max set of pullups should be fine. Shoulder press for the muscular endurance is also awkward when done quickly and for many repetitions because you need to get around your face and lockouts get dubious when done quickly. Pushups or even dips are probably better bets, but people tend not to lock their elbows out on dips.

6. Linear sprinting has little transfer to agility. Agility requires changes in velocity (i.e., deceleration) and/or changes in direction. You could use the T-Test or the pro agility test.

Patrick Donnelly
09-03-2009, 04:35 AM
You'd probably spend your time more effectively in contemplating the nature of nostrils. Really, they are pretty fascinating when you think about it. (Not joking. For example, why two nostrils for just one nose? The only explanation I can come up with is that it helps to thin the nasal cavity and provides more surface area for nose hair to grow in order to stop various stuff from getting up in there.)

Scott Kustes
09-03-2009, 05:34 AM
You'd probably spend your time more effectively in contemplating the nature of nostrils. Really, they are pretty fascinating when you think about it. (Not joking. For example, why two nostrils for just one nose? The only explanation I can come up with is that it helps to thin the nasal cavity and provides more surface area for nose hair to grow in order to stop various stuff from getting up in there.)

http://www.word-detective.com/howcome/nostrils.html
Smelling in stereo, it turns out, actually helps us distinguish one odor from another. It also brings out a touch of the bloodhound in each of us.

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/12/18_scents.shtml

Brandon Oto
09-03-2009, 11:51 AM
1. There are many standard tests to evaluate various aspects of fitness. For example, if you just looked in the NSCA's Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning, you'd find almost every test you'd need.

Fair enough. I left my copy in my other pants; could you give some examples? Do they meet the criteria we laid out?

2. You need to remember validity and reliability on every one of your tests, but through the internet, I guess you have to do with what you have. I don't know if you addressed it, but if multiple tests were to be done on the same day, they should be done in the following order: flexibility, power, strength, speed, muscular endurance, and then metabolic endurance.

That's not a bad point. We tried to walk a line between accuracy of data and not over-managing things, since people would probably ignore really onerous specifications anyway. But we assumed that people would try to maximize their scores, so they're not likely to do three tests in a row.

In any case, it really is up to the individual. This isn't a contest and it's only as useful or meaningful as you care to make it.

3. You do not have any test that utilizes the Stretch Shortening Cycle, like the standing triple jump.

Do you mean to measure Power? If so, there's the long jump -- this uses a stretch, unless you pause at the bottom for some reason...

4. IMO, the rankings should have the novice, intermediate, advanced, elite scale, so you can have a basis for understanding the numbers. I know you guys didn't want to do that, but the tests are pretty lacking without it.

As mentioned, it's the sort of thing that would have to be determined empirically. We were hoping to run this system through Logsitall, but there were some logistical complications; it may still happen. That would give a lot of analytical power.

5. For the muscular endurance, there's no need for a 2-minute test for the pullups. One max set of pullups should be fine.

Is there any particular reason you say this specifically for the pullups and not the other tests?

In any case, the idea behind the 2-minute tests was to explicitly include recovery in the test; you're welcome to take a break, and the guy who can get back on the bar quicker is demonstrating better endurance, in our view.

Shoulder press for the muscular endurance is also awkward when done quickly and for many repetitions because you need to get around your face and lockouts get dubious when done quickly.

The goal with the loading and time durations we specified was that the test would NOT become a race of who could move a bar the fastest. If 40% shoulder presses are limited in 2 minutes only by how fast you can move the bar -- that is, you won't at any point need to stop -- you're a better man than I am.

Of course, we also didn't want it to become a test of metabolic endurance (more of a danger with the squats and deadlifts), nor did we want to kill anyone (esp. with the deadlifts), so there are a number of considerations with these.

6. Linear sprinting has little transfer to agility. Agility requires changes in velocity (i.e., deceleration) and/or changes in direction. You could use the T-Test or the pro agility test.

Can you elaborate on these?

We had a lot of trouble finding tests for these other domains that were:

1. Easily standardized (meaning, not requiring some arbitrary arrangement of cones that everyone would position differently, or the like)
2. Easy to do (not requiring unusual equipment)
3. Fully quantifiable (scored by some open scale of points or time, allowing us to spread it on the 10-point scale)
4. Clearly indicative of broad capability (not just testing a very specific skill that's unlikely to have much carryover to other instances of agility)

Coordination and Accuracy are so bad, especially on the last two points, that I'm not sure we'll ever be able to test them in this way. Agility and Balance I have some hope for, but again, those last two challenges are significant.

Garrett Smith
09-04-2009, 11:38 AM
I don't know if you addressed it, but if multiple tests were to be done on the same day, they should be done in the following order: flexibility, power, strength, speed, muscular endurance, and then metabolic endurance.
Donald, what is the basis for this ordering? Is there a study or reference I can look at? Thanks.

Donald Lee
09-04-2009, 02:06 PM
Donald, what is the basis for this ordering? Is there a study or reference I can look at? Thanks.

That's how they say to do it in the NSCA book. It could be based on studies, but I'm not sure. I don't have the book with me.

I guess some of the ordering is debatable. For example, it depends what type of flexibility test you're doing, but for most flexiblity tests out there, it wouldn't interfere with anything that comes after. On the other hand, if you did the flexibility test after other stuff, the results wouldn't be as reliable.

Also, the speed and strength ordering could be switched, unless your speed test is a 100m run.

Garrett Smith
09-04-2009, 05:07 PM
Good to know, thanks.

Brandon Oto
10-30-2009, 05:28 PM
Just as a quick note, Dave Tate had a recent video in the CF Journal (http://journal.crossfit.com/2009/10/good-at-everything.tpl) where he discusses some similar and very pertinent ideas. His "equalizer" metaphor should ring familiar if you've looked at the ways we tried to quantify fitness domains.

Good thoughts on the notion of developing weaknesses vs. maintaining/developing strengths as well. Just overall some interesting stuff and worth a look for those who were unsure how and why comparing like numbers for disparate types of fitness could ever be useful. Tate's cool.

Mike Prevost
11-28-2009, 06:11 PM
For some time, I've been interested in establishing a way of testing and quantifying this ephemeral, know-it-when-you-see-it notion of GPP. One of the things CrossFit did that was cool is to actually define it -- I don't like their work capacity definition, but there's not much else available. Specific fitness? No problem. General fitness? What is it?

In any case, I did some work with Joe Cavazos on developing and scoring an actual series of tests to assess GPP. It's all explained so I won't belabor it too much here, but I'm very interested in any feedback or suggestions, as this is mostly original stuff that hasn't been well-tested yet. Just some regurgitation from our melons.

Have at it: http://gpp.degreesofclarity.com/

I don't see aerobic power and endurance. An 800m run would get you close for aerobic power but it is not ideal. Ideally you would use a ramp protocol on something like a treadmill run. I like 2 minute stages because you can sometimes gut it out for a minute. I like to hit exhaustion at the 4th to 6th two minute stage.

Lots of ways to test endurance but the truest tests involve holding a specific work rate to exhaustion. Time trials are OK if pacing is relatively constant. A 10K run, in this case, would be good.

Brandon Oto
11-28-2009, 07:08 PM
You don't like the 5k?

And -- why do you feel that holding a specific pace is an important thing to test? The resultant data might be interestingly exact, but for real-world results I'm not seeing how it's more relevant than saying, "I don't care if you start fast, finish fast, or run in a sine wave... just finish as quickly as possible."