Well, I took on board the sage advice I was given and have now done a preliminary test to try out the methodology and the files I've set up. As requested I'm letting you know how I got on, short write-up, chart, and video available on my blog here.
Cheers all.
PBUK
Nice job! Those are good results and quite a big jump from the '06 test. How did it feel?
-Dave P.S. Do yourself a favor and don't even look at your HR during your actual test. You don't want to give yourself any excuses for quitting early during a MAP test and even the psychological impact of seeing a higher than expected HR or power can tempt you to pull the plug. After warmup and rolldown I spot check my CT vs. my PT near the end of my warmup. Then I put a piece of electrical tape over the power display line on my PT and just ride the test. Maybe you're made of sterner stuff than I am, but I don't like to give myself any excuses for quitting early.
Nice job! Those are good results and quite a big jump from the '06 test. How did it feel?
Thank you. I was surprised how good I felt and for how long particularly given that I had not specifically prepared for the test at all. It was hard at the end of course, as you can see in the video, but that was only right at the end as I neared and hit VT. Up until then I was really pretty much Ok, certainly not as bad as I had expected, I was pleased. I am quite confident that this was not the best I can do, which it wasn't intended to be, I'll save that for a properly prepared for test in due course.
I suggest you do test without jersey. Wearing jersey when indoor temperatures gives you quite big thermal load. Also get sweat cover for your bike, so you can keep hand on a bar from beginning to the end of test session. As you raise yourself up to reach for towel, do toweling and put it back, it all takes extra effort that is away from test result.
Very interesting reading regarding MAP and Vo2MaxP testing protocol, minimum interval duration to elicit Vo2max, etc...No summary here, I'm still digesting the info...
p.s. Quick summary: a. 1 minute wattage stages yield significantly higher power outputs (40-50w in the case of the study) than 3min. stages (for both MAP and Vo2maxP). b. Minimum time (aka time to elicit Vo2max) required for L5 intervals needs to be 60% of time you can sustain at MAP, regardless if MAP was obtained via 1min or 3min test stages.
Very interesting reading regarding MAP and Vo2MaxP testing protocol, minimum interval duration to elicit Vo2max, etc...No summary here, I'm still digesting the info...
p.s. Quick summary: a. 1 minute wattage stages yield significantly higher power outputs (40-50w in the case of the study) than 3min. stages (for both MAP and Vo2maxP). b. Minimum time (aka time to elicit Vo2max) required for L5 intervals needs to be 60% of time you can sustain at MAP, regardless if MAP was obtained via 1min or 3min test stages.
Very interesting reference that, I'm going to spend some time on it.
Also seems to me that the results will be different if the load rises by 25W per minute in steps at one minute intervals rather than in say 5W steps at 12 second intervals. I think the former is more likely to induce a series of small "oxygen debt" steps which may impact on the overall results.
Also seems to me that the results will be different if the load rises by 25W per minute in steps at one minute intervals rather than in say 5W steps at 12 second intervals. I think the former is more likely to induce a series of small "oxygen debt" steps which may impact on the overall results.
PBUK
I have always increased power during my MAP tests as evenly as possible using 25W/min and 5W/12sec as guides only. IOW, from what I understood there shouldn't really be any discernible steps as long as the increase is equal to 20 or 25W/min.
I have always increased power during my MAP tests as evenly as possible using 25W/min and 5W/12sec as guides only. IOW, from what I understood there shouldn't really be any discernible steps as long as the increase is equal to 20 or 25W/min.
I agree with you that that's how it should be done, not sure if that's what is always done though. I originally raised the point of whether it should be a linear slope rather than have any steps at all and I still wonder if that's the best way to go, if one has the gear to set that up, simple on a CompuTrainer.
I have always increased power during my MAP tests as evenly as possible using 25W/min and 5W/12sec as guides only. IOW, from what I understood there shouldn't really be any discernible steps as long as the increase is equal to 20 or 25W/min.
I agree with you that that's how it should be done, not sure if that's what is always done though. I originally raised the point of whether it should be a linear slope rather than have any steps at all and I still wonder if that's the best way to go, if one has the gear to set that up, simple on a CompuTrainer.
... it should be a linear slope rather than have any steps at all ....
I'm pretty certain something as quick as a 12 second step is effectively a linear slope when you consider the roughly 30 second half life of metabolic adaptation.
A process with a 30 second half life takes almost two and a half minutes to approach full response to a step function change. Stepping the power every 12 or even 15 seconds is very fast relative to that adaptation time and the body's approximately exponential response to changes effectively smooths those steps into a linear ramp. The biggest difference between the 12 and 15 second step protocol is the slope of the ramp but I doubt either act on the body as discrete "oxygen debt" steps.
I'm pretty certain something as quick as a 12 second step is effectively a linear slope when you consider the roughly 30 second half life of metabolic adaptation.
A process with a 30 second half life takes almost two and a half minutes to approach full response to a step function change. Stepping the power every 12 or even 15 seconds is very fast relative to that adaptation time and the body's approximately exponential response to changes effectively smooths those steps into a linear ramp. The biggest difference between the 12 and 15 second step protocol is the slope of the ramp but I doubt either act on the body as discrete "oxygen debt" steps.
-Dave
I'm not a scientist. As such, do you mind putting this into laymans' terms? I think I understand the gist of what you're communicating but I'm interested in understanding the process you described. Thanks.
I'm not a scientist. As such, do you mind putting this into laymans' terms? I think I understand the gist of what you're communicating but I'm interested in understanding the process you described. Thanks.
Basically the body doesn't respond instantly to changes in stress. Examples include the way it takes a while for both your HR and RPE to react to changes in power output and lag at the start of a time trial.
Phyisiologists model this smoothed and delayed response as an exponential function with a time constant that describes the reaction time. Exponential functions never quite reach their goals but for all practical purposes fully respond to a sudden increase in input after 5 time constants. That delayed response effectively smoothes a MAP test ramp where the power is bumped up every 12 to 15 seconds into a continuous power ramp without the obvious discrete steps. Basically the time between power bumps would have to be much longer than 30 seconds and realistically closer to a minute and a half to two minutes before the body would come close to settling in at each step and experiencing discrete levels.
So bumping the power every 12 or 15 seconds during a MAP test is effectively the same as a continuous ramp without steps because of the way the body reacts to changes in workload.
