How to Measure Power in Athletes (And What Most Tests Miss)
Measuring Power Is Not the Same as Understanding Performance
Power is one of the most sought-after qualities in sport.
• Coaches test it
• Athletes train for it
• Programs are built around improving it
And over time, the field has become increasingly precise in how power is measured.
We can now:
• Quantify force output
• Track velocity
• Identify optimal loading zones
• Compare performance across athletes
These advancements have improved how peak output is identified, but there is an important distinction that is often overlooked:
Measuring power is not the same as understanding how power performs.
⸻
What Most Power Tests Capture Well
Traditional power testing methods are effective at identifying an athlete’s maximum expression.
These may include:
• Vertical jump performance
• Bar velocity at specific loads
• Peak wattage outputs
• Sprint speed or acceleration metrics
These assessments provide valuable insight into:
• How much force an athlete can produce
• How quickly that force can be expressed
• Where output is maximized
In other words, they define capacity, establishing the ceiling of what an athlete is capable of producing under ideal conditions.
⸻
What Most Power Tests Do Not Capture
While these tests are effective at identifying peak output, they are typically performed under controlled, low-fatigue conditions.
They do not fully account for how output behaves when:
• Efforts are repeated
• Recovery is incomplete
• Fatigue begins to accumulate
• Technical demands increase
In sport, these conditions are not the exception, they are the environment.
Athletes are rarely asked to produce power once in isolation.
They are required to:
• Repeat it
• Sustain it
• Re-express it under constraint
And this is where a critical gap begins to appear.
👉🏾 Why Peak Power Doesn't Guarantee Performance (Blog link)
⸻
The Difference Between Capacity and Behavior
Two athletes may produce similar peak outputs in testing, and on paper, they appear comparable.
But across repeated efforts:
• One maintains output with minimal change
• The other shows progressive decline
Peak capacity is similar, but performance is not.
This difference is not explained by peak testing alone, because peak testing measures what an athlete can produce once.
It does not measure how output behaves across exposures.
⸻
Output as a Pattern, Not a Moment
When power is evaluated only at its highest point, it is treated as a single event.
But in applied performance, output is better understood as a pattern over time.
Key questions begin to shift:
• Does output remain stable across sets?
• How quickly does it decline?
• Can it be re-expressed after stress?
• Is performance predictable from one exposure to the next?
These questions reflect how power is actually used in sport.
Not as a peak, but as a sequence.
👉🏾 What is the Evans Velo Zone Wave™? (Blog link)
⸻
Why This Matters Across Sport
This distinction is not limited to one domain.
It appears across:
• Olympic weightlifting (multiple attempts under fatigue)
• Field sports (repeated sprints and directional efforts)
• Rotational sports (consistent force transfer across rounds)
In each case, performance is influenced not only by how much power an athlete can produce, but by how reliably that power can be reproduced.
When capacity between athletes is similar, separation often comes from:
• Stability of output
• Repeatability of performance
• Durability under constraint
⸻
Expanding How Power Is Measured
This does not replace traditional testing, but expands it.
Peak output still answers an important question:
Where is power maximized?
But an additional layer asks:
Now how does that power behave after it is produced?
Evaluating power through this lens allows coaches to observe:
• Decay patterns across sets
• Consistency of re-expression
• Stability under increasing demand
This creates a more complete picture of performance.
👉🏾 If you’re working with athletes and want to apply this directly, you can explore the EVZ Certification here.
⸻
A Practical Starting Point
One way to begin observing this is through repeated exposures.
For example, simply across three structured sets, a coach can evaluate:
• Whether output remains consistent
• Whether it declines
• Whether it can be re-expressed
This type of observation introduces a behavioral layer to power evaluation.
If you’re interested in applying this directly, a simple framework is outlined here:
👉🏾 How to Spot a Retention Problem in 3 Sets (Blog link)
⸻
From Measurement to Application
Understanding how power behaves is only the first step.
The next is knowing how to apply that information.
How to:
• Adjust programming
• Structure exposures
• Improve repeatability of output
Because improving performance is not just about increasing capacity, it’s about ensuring that capacity holds when it matters.
⸻
Closing Perspective
Power testing has advanced significantly, but as the field continues to evolve, so does the need to understand performance beyond isolated peaks.
Peak output defines what an athlete can produce and how that output behaves across repeated efforts helps determine what they can actually apply in sport.
⸻
Next Steps
If you want to evaluate how this shows up in your own athletes:
👉🏾 Run a diagnostic in the EVZ App (Coming soon)
If you want to learn how to interpret and apply these patterns in programming:
👉🏾 Explore the EVZ Practitioner Certification
