Incremental test in lab vs FT - professional riders values

the professional cyclists values I cite are from a test that begins at 110w, with 35w increase every 4 minutes, but, interestingly - a 1 minute recovery period between intervals.....

I still think this is considerably harder than a 100w start - 40w per minute increase....

There appear to be about 15 different wMax tests in use.

BullGod said:

There appear to be about 15 different wMax tests in use.

And, with 15 different protocols, potentially 15 different results.
Annoying, isn't it?
:p

BullGod said:

I just did an incremental increase test - start @80w add increase of 40 every minute - got to 400 and then stopped. This was at a sport medicine lab with an ECG and VO2 test running during the test. The highest value I sustained was 389w.

It wasn't my maximum, as I only hit 176 HR and my race max is 193.....I felt like I gave 75%...I was pretty wasted from racing at the weekend, and as the purpose of the test was just a medical check I wasn't so motivated to "prove" my values...didn't feel like suffering at all to be honest.

I also only got 64 ml/kg/min on VO2 - as I wasn't going my hardest is my real value likely to be slightly higher? I was quite disappointed in this value, but the test was at 0830 and I'd done 2 races and 300km total in the 4 days prior....

Anyone any insight or opinion on how such a value from an incremental test relate to FT?

I have access through my work to sport science journals and I know that a study into professional cyclists found a range of wMax under incremental increase testing to be 349-525, and VO2max - 69-84. the study concludes - "A power/weight ratio of >5.5 W/kg is considered a necessary prerequisite for top-level competitive cyclists"....(happy to report I got 5.6 ;-))

I'm curious about the difference between the FT and an incremental test result. Mt FT was about 360, but on a Taxc flow....so most people knocked that value down a lot. I have to say the lab test didn't seem much harder.

VO2max will occur before the end of the test. It doesn't occur at your 'max', it occurs when your O2 consumption plateaus. You can continue beyond that due to anaerobic contribution (especially if the steps are large and quick). And fatigue shouldn't play a significant role in what value you can attain (except at the extremes). The test you describe doesn't give you any direct evidence of what your FTP is. Anecdotally, it's likely to be at about 85% (+/- 5-7%) of VO2max.

Scott

BullGod said:

I'm curious about the difference between the FT and an incremental test result. Mt FT was about 360, but on a Taxc flow....so most people knocked that value down a lot. I have to say the lab test didn't seem much harder.

using a different protocol (and thus you'll get completely different results)... http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=powerstern

ric

That is an awfully fast ramp on the protocol. Great results for guys with huge anaerobic capacities. Reckon I'd get through the entire 520w minute and blow very shortly thereafter increasing to 560w, so that'd be about 7.6w/kg (520/68). Imagine that protour caliber riders with an FTP of 6+w/kg and a healthy dose of anaerobic work capacity (like a Vinokourov) would make it partially through the 640w minute, but not likely to the 680w range.

Compare that with a 20w ramp protocol and I'd likely blow a few seconds after completing the 500w minute and starting the 520w minute.

At those intensities motivation and freshness are definitely a factor.

With a known FTP and 30 second absolute power output, I think you could make a good guess at what you can do on these tests. At least I feel confident I can make an accurate guess for myself.

joemw said:

That is an awfully fast ramp on the protocol. Great results for guys with huge anaerobic capacities. Reckon I'd get through the entire 520w minute and blow very shortly thereafter increasing to 560w, so that'd be about 7.6w/kg (520/68). Imagine that protour caliber riders with an FTP of 6+w/kg and a healthy dose of anaerobic work capacity (like a Vinokourov) would make it partially through the 640w minute, but not likely to the 680w range.

Compare that with a 20w ramp protocol and I'd likely blow a few seconds after completing the 500w minute and starting the 520w minute.

At those intensities motivation and freshness are definitely a factor.

With a known FTP and 30 second absolute power output, I think you could make a good guess at what you can do on these tests. At least I feel confident I can make an accurate guess for myself.

Motivation and freshness may be a factor in how far you could go, but (again, except in extreme cases) shouldn't effect your VO2max result. What number you actually 'blow' at is really totally irrellevant. That number doesn't provide any practical information (beyond being able to say in a general sense how much AC you have, which I'd say can be guessed equally well during a single outside ride =), and as you mentioned, is tremendously dependent on ramp protocol.

Scott

scotmart said:

What number you actually 'blow' at is really totally irrellevant. That number doesn't provide any practical information (beyond being able to say in a general sense how much AC you have, which I'd say can be guessed equally well during a single outside ride =), and as you mentioned, is tremendously dependent on ramp protocol.

What would be some good ways to estimate power at VO2Max in your opinion (outside of a lab I mean)? Steady state (as opposed to rampup)?

I'd just like to also point out that the test I did was on an ergo bike....not set to my specifications (in fact set up like a pushbike) and I had trainers (sneakers) on with toe clips! as i said, it was just a stress ECG.

I'm racing cat 1 in Holland, and I've improved from getting regularly dropped in criteriums to hanging on and finishing most races in the bunch. Nowadays if I get dropped, quite a few other guys got dropped too....and according to the Tacx flow my FT is 365.

Your actual FTP is probably quite a bit less than 360W. If it was 360W, you would've gone a lot higher than 400W with that test protocol.

I'm pretty tired of people constantly telling me my FT is way below what I think it is on this forum. I can sort of understand it cos if I'd spent thousands on an SRM unit I would want all the cheaper versions to be wildly accurate too, and if I was doing very little besides constantly training my watts I would also want other people to have lower FT's that they might like to think they have.

Personally I prefer to test my fitness actually doing races at a pretty damn diffucult level here in NL, and anyone who says my FT is crappy should bear in mind that not many of the users here can finish Cat 1 Euro criteriums after just 3 years of cycling.

BullGod said:

I'm pretty tired of people constantly telling me my FT is way below what I think it is on this forum.

I'm not sure anybody really cares what your FTP is. But, when you post a question wondering how your FTP relates to a ramp test, you're going to get feedback based on the relationship of FTP to ramp tests. For example, if you had done Ric's ramp test for MAP, your FTP would probably be in the vicinity of 75%MAP, plus or minus (assuming your MP/duration curve is fairly normal). Anyway, anything short of a highly motivated, constant power ride at max power for 60 minutes is an estimate of FTP and all estimates have some error. Your question is actually pretty ridiculous since you clearly stated that you were fatigued and not motivated and didn't really give a full effort. It would be like me asking, "I went for a ride today and didn't really work very hard and was tired from a full weekend of racing. My AP was 250W. What do you think my FTP is?" Ridiculous question based on the data.

my question was more about the relationship between incremental testing and FT, not my ... to be honest once all this jargon comes into the discussion it gets kind of boring and reminiscent of physics lessons at scool.

just seems to me that some of you guys are way too involved in this powerplay and not putting the hammer down in races often enough. To be honest I know plenty of elite riders here who train and race without power meters and don't give a damn what their FTP or MAP is....it's where you are at the finish line that matters more.

I think there is a danger of "training to improve the numbers" rather than training to do well in races going on here. I can testify from personal experience that doing highly motivated 60 minute constant power output training sessions will get you dropped like a hot potato in a race.

BullGod said:

my question was more about the relationship between incremental testing and FT, not my ... to be honest once all this jargon comes into the discussion it gets kind of boring and reminiscent of physics lessons at scool.

Well, as people (and you yourself) have said, it depends on the test, etc, etc.

BullGod said:

just seems to me that some of you guys are way too involved in this powerplay and not putting the hammer down in races often enough. To be honest I know plenty of elite riders here who train and race without power meters and don't give a damn what their FTP or MAP is....it's where you are at the finish line that matters more..

No need to start a rant because you're offended. I agree with a lot of your points, but this forum is dedicated to training and racing with powermeters. And developing power is a nice way to be more succesful in races.🙂 Besides, a forum where we all bragged about race results would be kind of boring and not too productive.

BullGod said:

I think there is a danger of "training to improve the numbers" rather than training to do well in races going on here.

Just a moment, should we be training to lower our power numbers? Is lowering my FT the hot ticket onto the podium? No, of course not. Training to get better race results IS THE SAME as training to produce better numbers, assuming you keep in mind what abilities need to be trained. Then, of course, theirs tactics, position, etc. But that's learned through experience, rather than training.

BullGod said:

I can testify from personal experience that doing highly motivated 60 minute constant power output training sessions will get you dropped like a hot potato in a race.

Can you elaborate here?

BullGod said:

I think there is a danger of "training to improve the numbers" rather than training to do well in races going on here. I can testify from personal experience that doing highly motivated 60 minute constant power output training sessions will get you dropped like a hot potato in a race.

Oh-oh. I feel a fight coming on...

BullGod said:

my question was more about the relationship between incremental testing and FT, not my ... to be honest once all this jargon comes into the discussion it gets kind of boring and reminiscent of physics lessons at scool.

There is a relationship between almost any max power performance test and FTP, including maximum sustainable power in a ramp test (e.g., average of last minute of test). The question is what is the quality of the relationship or, in statistical terms, what is the standard deviation of the predicted value for a large population of trained cyclists. Obviously, the further you get from a direct test of FTP (60mins at constant max power), the more error there will be in a performance test. Even the widely used 2x20s at one's maximum sustainable power *.95 probably has ~5% error because people have different anaerobic capacities which influences their maximum sustainable 20min power.

BullGod said:

just seems to me that some of you guys are way too involved in this powerplay and not putting the hammer down in races often enough. To be honest I know plenty of elite riders here who train and race without power meters and don't give a damn what their FTP or MAP is....it's where you are at the finish line that matters more.

Classic statement by someone who doesn't have a PM and has no experience training with power.

BullGod said:

I think there is a danger of "training to improve the numbers" rather than training to do well in races going on here. I can testify from personal experience that doing highly motivated 60 minute constant power output training sessions will get you dropped like a hot potato in a race.

I don't know a single person (me included) who does 60min constant power training sessions other than as a periodic performance test. But, it is in fact the gold standard for measuring FTP and is rock solid for measuring changes in aerobic power. It is furthermore the key piece of data for structured training at all durations as per Andy Coggan's schema. Frankly, given his credentials and most anybody else's, I'll take his advice over theirs on the qeustion of how best to attain targeted adaptations. Good luck with your training, but frankly you don't know what you're talking about in terms of training with power.

RapDaddyo said:

Classic statement by someone who doesn't have a PM and has no experience training with power.

Good luck with your training, but frankly you don't know what you're talking about in terms of training with power.

😄

Sorry, I am just bored and have absolutely nothing to add.

I think over here the whole power meter thing isn't so big....you almost make starting training with power sound like a religious awakening or something....

I just think that if you train alone in order to try and improve race fitness you'll make little progress no matter how many expensive gadgets you might have. I improved by leaps and bounds by racing as often as possible and the sheer demands placed on me by a quality field and my competive instinct way exceeded any possible intensity of my training rides.

Training by yourself seems to me only good for racing against yourself.

I mean, even if one could obtain a power output for a race, and then somehow find the motivation and discipline to produce a mirror image of that power profile in training it doesn't mean you'll do well in the race at all. Factors such as bike handling, tactics, nerve etc become relevant, plus the fact that no race is the same. There are easy ones and hard ones. You might keep ending up behind a real sprint king out of every bend and have to go deep into the red to close the gap every time for instance.

After base period I tend to see "training" as either consolidation, recovery, warm up and "damage limitation" if the race calendar is looking bare. If i was constantly worrying about MAP, FTP, MP curves etc it would seem too much like science. Besides I have little desire to part with several months salary on a tool that plenty of elite riders in these parts don't even bother with.

Personally I don't see my ignorance on the subject of wattage as a problem.

BullGod said:

I think over here the whole power meter thing isn't so big....you almost make starting training with power sound like a religious awakening or something....

I just think that if you train alone in order to try and improve race fitness you'll make little progress no matter how many expensive gadgets you might have. I improved by leaps and bounds by racing as often as possible and the sheer demands placed on me by a quality field and my competive instinct way exceeded any possible intensity of my training rides.

I'm playing Devils Advocate: why bother coming to this forum then?

Quoted post said:

Factors such as bike handling, tactics, nerve etc become relevant, plus the fact that no race is the same. There are easy ones and hard ones. You might keep ending up behind a real sprint king out of every bend and have to go deep into the red to close the gap every time for instance.

i'm *certain* that there are people in lower categories with just as good or better bike handling and tactics, etc as in your category, but they wouldn't last the (your) race. Why do you think that is?

Quoted post said:

Besides I have little desire to part with several months salary on a tool that plenty of elite riders in these parts don't even bother with.

For what reason do you think that many pros train with a powermeter?

ric

BullGod said:

Training by yourself seems to me only good for racing against yourself.

I DO have something to add.

Some of us, ok few of us or maybe just me, do race usually only against ourselves. I like to call it track racing. Me against the clock. So far for me, power training is invaluable.

Thanks.