MAP test protocal

kclw said:

What protocal are most people using for MAP test?

Speciafically what is the jump per stage and what is the stage length?

with the RST or BC protocol
25 W/min non-elite males
20 W/min elite males
15 W/min females

see http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=powerstern
http://cyclecoach.com/pageID-downloadPages-Calculate_your_MAP_zones.htm
http://cyclecoach.com/pageID-downloadPages-MAP_test.htm

Ric

CCA: 30W every 3 minutes Elite Males. This allows for a bit more stabilization at the level to facilitate blood-lactate testing, HR observation, etc.

Aim to have the test last at least 12 minutes (4 stages) maybe no more than 24 (8 stages).

Whatever the protocol, stick to it for comparability.

Spunout said:

CCA: 30W every 3 minutes Elite Males. This allows for a bit more stabilization at the level to facilitate blood-lactate testing, HR observation, etc.

Aim to have the test last at least 12 minutes (4 stages) maybe no more than 24 (8 stages).

Whatever the protocol, stick to it for comparability.

I've done both tests and definitely prefer the BCF/RST protocol. There's a large base of data for the BCF/RST test versus performance at different durations (FTP for example) and I don't recall seeing anything like that for the CCA test. I don't think the CCA test is really that useful on a long-term basis.

Anyway it's more fun peaking at 500+ W versus 450 or so 🙂

It is available, there are plans based on it but it is not public.

When doing the BC test, how many lactate samples do you take, and when?

It is an AEROBIC test, so we really should not pick a test based on the highest output result.

Spunout said:

CCA: 30W every 3 minutes Elite Males. This allows for a bit more stabilization at the level to facilitate blood-lactate testing, HR observation, etc.

Perhaps more importantly, 3 min stages provide better VO2 (and RER) data from which to calculate efficiency.

ric_stern/RST said:

with the RST or BC protocol
25 W/min non-elite males
20 W/min elite males
15 W/min females

My wife failed at 325 W during a recent incremental exercise test during which the power was increased at 25 W/min. How much higher do you think she could have gone if the rate were 15 W/min instead?

Spunout said:

It is available, there are plans based on it but it is not public.

When doing the BC test, how many lactate samples do you take, and when?

It is an AEROBIC test, so we really should not pick a test based on the highest output result.

okay I hadn't seen those plans.

BCF test - no lactate but that's a feature not a bug. Honestly with readily available PM's these days who cares about measuring lactate levels? Another red herring IMHO (with apologies to RCHung).

Last comment of mine was a joke. My gold standard aerobic test is a full-on 40k TT in benign conditions ... but for me 75% of MAP is always spot-on and it's a relatively quick & easy test. Not as good training though 😉

acoggan said:

My wife failed at 325 W during a recent incremental exercise test during which the power was increased at 25 W/min. How much higher do you think she could have gone if the rate were 15 W/min instead?

i'd have thought she'd have failed at a lower value...

ric

ric_stern/RST said:

i'd have thought she'd have failed at a lower value...

ric

Um, er...yeah! What was I thinking? 😕

acoggan said:

Um, er...yeah! What was I thinking? 😕

dunno... i thought it was a trick question 😉

ric_stern/RST said:

dunno... i thought it was a trick question 😉

I thought it was a trick question designed to get one to think about why you would use a different ramp rate for male vs. female MAP tests.

Are there different "zones" based on the MAP results for male and female riders?

There reason I am asking is different test protocals have considerably different results.

Since Andy is talking about his wife.

My wife fails at 400 is the jump is 25w every minute.
fails at 300 if the jump is 30w every three minutes (old CCA protcal)
fails at 275 if the jump is 25w every three minutes (new CCA protcal for females)

As you can see these are quite different results.

I always thought that goal of a MAP test is to find a person maximal aerobic power. If the jumps are too short then the anerobic system effects the values. If the jumps are too large then fatique may prevent them from achieving their MAP.

Pick a test protocol and stick to it.

The test is MAP in itself regardless, and is only comparable to others under the same protocol. Adjust your zones and training plans accordingly.

See...MAP is a tough one to nail down...isn't it? 😉

I like FT testing as it is relatively an easy concept...but both tests and include LBP (Lactate Balance Point) would be the holy trinity of performance testing.

Spunout said:

Pick a test protocol and stick to it.

The test is MAP in itself regardless, and is only comparable to others under the same protocol. Adjust your zones and training plans accordingly.

See...MAP is a tough one to nail down...isn't it? 😉

I like FT testing as it is relatively an easy concept...but both tests and include LBP (Lactate Balance Point) would be the holy trinity of performance testing.

The issue I have with FTP is motivation. How hard I am willing to push myself in trainning varies a fair bit.

Also that last 30W step and finishing it causes the same problem in many. Most coaches have a puke bucket beside the trainer to this effect.

Compared to a 1 hour TT how can this test be useful for anything other than covert spouse abuse?🙂

kclw said:

There reason I am asking is different test protocals have considerably different results.

Since Andy is talking about his wife.

My wife fails at 400 is the jump is 25w every minute.
fails at 300 if the jump is 30w every three minutes (old CCA protcal)
fails at 275 if the jump is 25w every three minutes (new CCA protcal for females)

As you can see these are quite different results.

I always thought that goal of a MAP test is to find a person maximal aerobic power. If the jumps are too short then the anerobic system effects the values. If the jumps are too large then fatique may prevent them from achieving their MAP.

Spunout said:

I like FT testing as it is relatively an easy concept...but both tests and include LBP (Lactate Balance Point) would be the holy trinity of performance testing.

1. Functional threshold power essentially equals the lactate balance point.

2. I'm not sure what would be gained by doing an incremental exercise test (sans VO2 or blood lactate measurements) if you already know somebody's functional threshold power. I've tried to combine the data from the two to quantify anaerobic work capacity (hence the reason my wife recently did that incremental exercise test), but the numbers don't really make sense (i.e., they appear to be protocol-dependent, when in theory they shouldn't be).

Agree on protocol-dependence. So many measuring sticks out there.

I didn't know that about FT and MAP testing. You mean if fitness gains (AWC, FT, whatever) are had, the same gains usually show up in both tests?