MAP -> FTP Relationship?

Porkyboy said:

Hi

Just wondering if anyone knows of any work that has been done on typical or "normal" relationships between the above.

For example, if someone has a well trained (ie. approaching genetic limit) MAP of 300W what might you expect them to be able to train up to in terms of FTP over a period of years say in percentage terms? 70%? 80%? 90%?

I'm sure there is an answer somewhere in all the power profiling information but was wondering what people's perceptions are based on experience.

Thank you.

PBUK

If memory serves me, almost everyone's FTP falls between 72-77% of MAP.

postal_bag said:

If memory serves me, almost everyone's FTP falls between 72-77% of MAP.

That's about right.

I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately with the recent MAP thread. Andy offered that rough range as typical MAP to FTP ratios and a good starting estimate. But we also know that FTP as a function of power at VO2 Max (which is effectively MAP) is perhaps the most elastic thing we attempt to influence through training.

Anyway, I do MAP tests from time to time but I do wonder how accurate it is and how much that depends on training history, AWC to CP ratio, and perhaps time of year in terms of whether we're in that range or closer to the 72% or 77% end. IOW, we all have different Monod curves which would mean we all have different FTP to MAP ratios.

-Dave

daveryanwyoming said:

Anyway, I do MAP tests from time to time but I do wonder how accurate it is and how much that depends on training history, AWC to CP ratio, and perhaps time of year in terms of whether we're in that range or closer to the 72% or 77% end. IOW, we all have different Monod curves which would mean we all have different FTP to MAP ratios. -Dave

I would venture that MAP testing is more reliable than FTP testing. FTP estimation accuracy, IMO, gets refined in that multiple methods of estimation and thus, potentially multiple data points may be available.

Dave, I agree with your comments WRT to the effects of training history, AWC to CP ratio (or genetics), and perhaps time of year (or training composition/emphasis) on the FTP/MAP ratio. Certainly, coaches that utilize MAP and FTP have found that the ratio can manipulated via training prescriptions.

FWIW, my FTP/MAP has been ~80% over my last two testing periods. A bit of an outlier.

Considering my FTP:MAP ratio has to be in the low to mid 90s (considering my LTP:MAP is 92%, and my understanding is that LTP tends to be a few % < FTP), can someone provide an expert opinion as to what I'm doing right, or wrong WRT to my training rx? I have some ideas, but I'd like hear from some experts if you have the time and/or interest in providing such opinion...

No intention in highjacking this thread, so feel free to disregard if offense taken...

tonyzackery said:

Considering my FTP:MAP ratio has to be in the low to mid 90s (considering my LTP:MAP is 92%, and my understanding is that LTP tends to be a few % < FTP), can someone provide an expert opinion as to what I'm doing right, or wrong WRT to my training rx? I have some ideas, but I'd like hear from some experts if you have the time and/or interest in providing such opinion...

No intention in highjacking this thread, so feel free to disregard if offense taken...

I would not qualify myself as an expert in this area, but the experts might want to know:
1) Have you tested for FTP? Yes you can assume that LTP is likely lower than FTP, but LTP introduces some different variables.
2) Were your LTP and MAP both tested with similar rest during the same testing period?
3) Are you talking about repeated LTP/MAP ratios of 90+%, or just recent? If only recent, it might have a bit to do with your training composition:
[INDENT]L1 - 6% (w/u, cool down)
L2 - 60% (active recovery/easy riding but above L1 on trainer)
L3 - no focused training in this level
L4 - 33% (time trial, trainer work)
L5 - no focus
L6 - no focus
L7 - <1% (sprinting at the end of the time trial)[/INDENT]

Hi

Fightin Boba said:

I would venture that MAP testing is more reliable than FTP testing. FTP estimation accuracy, IMO, gets refined in that multiple methods of estimation and thus, potentially multiple data points may be available.

Thank you for the contributions thus far, extremely interesting and certainly what I was hoping for. If what Steve says above is right, and I believe it is, and if there is a pretty predictable relationship between MAP and FTP why not just test MAP and calculate FTP from it if required?

Just seems to me that it is quicker, short and sharp, very repeatable, and potentially less likely to be done in different ways. A "standard" of say 73% of MAP could be taken as FTP, or then again one could just use the RST zones which are MAP based!

Cheers,

PBUK

Porkyboy said:

Hi

Thank you for the contributions thus far, extremely interesting and certainly what I was hoping for. If what Steve says above is right, and I believe it is, and if there is a pretty predictable relationship between MAP and FTP why not just test MAP and calculate FTP from it if required?

Just seems to me that it is quicker, short and sharp, very repeatable, and potentially less likely to be done in different ways. A "standard" of say 73% of MAP could be taken as FTP, or then again one could just use the RST zones which are MAP based!

Cheers,

PBUK

Well of course I am using MAP based zones with my clients. There's a lot of similarity anyway and given there is a lot of overlap in RST zones, they do essentially the same job as the Coggan levels. I do find it easier to be a little more specific in training zones presciption at endurance levels, and RST zones enable that.

This chart shows the broad relationship.

Typically FTP falls in the range of 72-77% of MAP, however that is not always the case and I have clients and know of others whom fall outside this range.

However before anyone draws too many conclusions, the MAP and FTP values need to be relatively recent and also need to be derived from a reliable protocol. MAP is easier since its protocol is well defined, however FTP needs a little more care to get right. So if you are way off base from the typical range, I would first be checking the protocol used to determine both MAP and FTP.

Also, the relationship between MAP and FTP can and does change for an individual depending on where they are in their training and the nature of the training they are doing. As we get get fitter, the rate of improvement in MAP and FTP can differ (and indeed sometime one can stall while the other moves). For example, in my most recent testing, my FTP went up 14% and my MAP by 8.5%.

I used to normally have a highish FTP:MAP ratio but of late I have been at the other end of the scale.

Certainly one can view MAP as an indicator of an aerobic ceiling and it gives some clues as to whether working on lifting the roof is needed, or one can just continue climbing the FTP ladder.

daveryanwyoming said:

That's about right.

I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately with the recent MAP thread. Andy offered that rough range as typical MAP to FTP ratios and a good starting estimate. But we also know that FTP as a function of power at VO2 Max (which is effectively MAP) is perhaps the most elastic thing we attempt to influence through training.

Anyway, I do MAP tests from time to time but I do wonder how accurate it is and how much that depends on training history, AWC to CP ratio, and perhaps time of year in terms of whether we're in that range or closer to the 72% or 77% end. IOW, we all have different Monod curves which would mean we all have different FTP to MAP ratios.

-Dave

Is this true of a 25w/min ramp test?

I thought that the 20w/2 min and 30/3 min ramp rates delivered you closer to power @ VO2 max, whereas the 25/min ramp rate gets you some ~15% higher than power at VO2 max.

Fightin Boba said:

I would not qualify myself as an expert in this area, but the experts might want to know:
1) Have you tested for FTP? Yes you can assume that LTP is likely lower than FTP, but LTP introduces some different variables.
2) Were your LTP and MAP both tested with similar rest during the same testing period?

3) Are you talking about repeated LTP/MAP ratios of 90+%, or just recent? If only recent, it might have a bit to do with your training composition:[indent]L1 - 6% (w/u, cool down)

L2 - 60% (active recovery/easy riding but above L1 on trainer)
L3 - no focused training in this level
L4 - 33% (time trial, trainer work)
L5 - no focus
L6 - no focus
L7 - <1% (sprinting at the end of the time trial)

[/indent]

Appreciate the opinion. To address your queries:

1. No, but it is reasonable to presume FTP is > LTP, regardless
2. Yes
3. Single (not repeated) Vo2max test. Will retest in April. Thanks for pointing it out to the unaware, but I'm cognizant that my training has brought about my LTP:MAP.

postal_bag said:

Is this true of a 25w/min ramp test?

I thought that the 20w/2 min and 30/3 min ramp rates delivered you closer to power @ VO2 max, whereas the 25/min ramp rate gets you some ~15% higher than power at VO2 max.

I haven't delved deeply enough into the different MAP test protocols and how they relate to pVO2 Max. But I doubt the two protocols Ric describes differ by nearly as much as 15%.

I use the non-elite 25 w/min ramp rate and have done a number of these tests over the last few years. I've done the 20 w/min test a couple of times out just to see what would happen. My MAP predicted by the slower ramp rate protocol was a bit lower by about 5 to 7 watts but it sure wasn't 15% lower. That would be the difference between predicting a MAP of say 400 watts and 340 watts with the two different test protocols I haven't seen nearly that much difference.

I'm sure Ric, Alex or Andy could give you a better answer into which if any of the MAP test protocols best predicts power at VO2 Max, but I suspect the standard 20 and 25 w/min protocols only differ by a few percentage points at the most. I'm not claiming to know the answer and could easily be wrong, but a 15% spread seems way too high to me.

-Dave

Here's a thread from the wattage group that addresses the relationship of MAP to VO2max power. It has comments from Andy and Ric.

http://groups.google.com/group/wattage/browse_frm/thread/59947b4f9cfee16/69b04004975466c5?lnk=gst&q=MAP+%2B+PPO#69b04004975466c5

greg

postal_bag said:

Is this true of a 25w/min ramp test?

I thought that the 20w/2 min and 30/3 min ramp rates delivered you closer to power @ VO2 max, whereas the 25/min ramp rate gets you some ~15% higher than power at VO2 max.

VO2 Max can be induced at a range of powers, there is no one power at VO2 Max.

But typically, I would expect the minimum power required to induce VO2 Max would be in the vicinity of 15% less than MAP (give or take). Depends a bit on FTP:MAP ratio and/or one's AWC.

Remember that FTP is ~ 25% less than MAP, so VO2 Max being induced at a power 10% more than FTP is about right.

daveryanwyoming said:

I haven't delved deeply enough into the different MAP test protocols and how they relate to pVO2 Max. But I doubt the two protocols Ric describes differ by nearly as much as 15%.

I use the non-elite 25 w/min ramp rate and have done a number of these tests over the last few years. I've done the 20 w/min test a couple of times out just to see what would happen. My MAP predicted by the slower ramp rate protocol was a bit lower by about 5 to 7 watts but it sure wasn't 15% lower. That would be the difference between predicting a MAP of say 400 watts and 340 watts with the two different test protocols I haven't seen nearly that much difference.

I'm sure Ric, Alex or Andy could give you a better answer into which if any of the MAP test protocols best predicts power at VO2 Max, but I suspect the standard 20 and 25 w/min protocols only differ by a few percentage points at the most. I'm not claiming to know the answer and could easily be wrong, but a 15% spread seems way too high to me.

-Dave

Actually I was suggesting 20w every 2 minutes to estimate VO2 max, and that 25w/minute might get you 15% higher.

Alex Simmons said:

VO2 Max can be induced at a range of powers, there is no one power at VO2 Max.

But typically, I would expect the minimum power required to induce VO2 Max would be in the vicinity of 15% less than MAP (give or take). Depends a bit on FTP:MAP ratio and/or one's AWC.

Remember that FTP is ~ 25% less than MAP, so VO2 Max being induced at a power 10% more than FTP is about right.

OK, thanks. The reason I brought it up was that people were suggesting they had an FTP that was >90% of their MAP. Obviously they had used a different ramp rate.

postal_bag said:

OK, thanks. The reason I brought it up was that people were suggesting they had an FTP that was >90% of their MAP. Obviously they had used a different ramp rate.

Which just prompted me to go back and look at my old ramps tests from 2003-2005 which I used to do at a 20W per 2-min ramp.

Now back then I was only estimating TT power to nearest 10W (and not by tests with quite the same rigour as today) but I got ratios of 92%, 91%, 87%, 88%, 88% of final 1-min average power, so looks like the same ballpark.

Alex Simmons said:

Which just prompted me to go back and look at my old ramps tests from 2003-2005 which I used to do at a 20W per 2-min ramp.

Now back then I was only estimating TT power to nearest 10W (and not by tests with quite the same rigour as today) but I got ratios of 92%, 91%, 87%, 88%, 88% of final 1-min average power, so looks like the same ballpark.

These ratios are so high, by comparison my FTP is only 67-72% of vo2max

11ring said:

These ratios are so high, by comparison my FTP is only 67-72% of vo2max

I didn't say VO2 Max. I was referring to the ratio of FTP (estimate) to the 1-min MMP from a ramp test at a 20W/2-min protocol.

But I'm a little uncertain what you mean anyway.

VO2 is a measure of oxygen utilisation.
FTP is a measure of TT power.

You either express ratios of VO2 or you express ratios of power.

Hence, you either express the % of VO2 Max you are at when generating TT power, or you could express FTP as a % of minimum power requried to elicit VO2 Max.

Well trained cyclists can sustain 85-90% of VO2 Max in a TT effort.

And 110% of FTP I would suggest would be ample to induce VO2 Max. (i.e. FTP is ~ 90% of the power requried to induce VO2 Max).

Let me attempt to begin to summarize the factors that may impact FTP:MAP ratio:

Training factors, including, but probably not limited to:
[INDENT]training composition[/INDENT]

Genetic factors, including, but probably not limited to:
[INDENT]AWC[/INDENT]

Testing factors, including, but probably not limited to:
[INDENT]rate of MAP test ramp rate
accuracy of FTP estimation
relative rest before testing
both MAP and FTP from same relative testing period
capacity to generate indoor vs outdoor power (MAP always done indoors, FTP testing may be from either indoors or outdoors)[/INDENT]

Additions? Deletions? Comments?

Yes, i know that,my mistake.

I meant FTP/ VO2 max power from ramp test, ie min power to elicit vo2max during the ramp.

in L/min, LT is 67% of vo2max, or 3.2 l/m / 4.75 l/m

Obviously i am not well trained.

Alex Simmons said:

I didn't say VO2 Max. I was referring to the ratio of FTP (estimate) to the 1-min MMP from a ramp test at a 20W/2-min protocol.

But I'm a little uncertain what you mean anyway.

VO2 is a measure of oxygen utilisation.
FTP is a measure of TT power.

You either express ratios of VO2 or you express ratios of power.

Hence, you either express the % of VO2 Max you are at when generating TT power, or you could express FTP as a % of minimum power requried to elicit VO2 Max.

Well trained cyclists can sustain 85-90% of VO2 Max in a TT effort.

And 110% of FTP I would suggest would be ample to induce VO2 Max. (i.e. FTP is ~ 90% of the power requried to induce VO2 Max).