Urkiola2 said:According to you, MAP Test is a maximum aerobic power test?. What do you exactely mean by that?
While the acronym may not necessarily accurately describe Maximal Aerobic Power (whatever anyone's interpretation of that is), it is a shorthand way of descibing the mean maximal 1-minute power from an incremental power ramp test to exhaustion using a protocol as defined by British Cycling and is used as a method to define power training levels and an objective means to establish a rider's progress (or not as they case may be). The definition and accompanying notes can be found here:
cyclecoach.compageID news Test yourself.htmOpen ↗
Obviously the result is very protocol dependant. Since most that hang around here or on other power training forums understand that this is the protocol referred to when we use the term MAP, then it really doesn't matter what we call it. We can call it the BCF or the MinRamp or the Alex test for all I care 🙂.
What matters is that as long as the test protocol is adhered to, then the resulting MAP value can be used to defined training levels (ranges) that when also used with appropriate training protocols predominantly* target desired physiological adaptations (mostly aerobic adaptations such as endurance, increased muscle capilliarisation, increased muscle glycogen storage, LT and VO2Max, blood plasma volume, cardiac output) up to improving anaerobic work capacity.
* Of course training adaptations are not discrete to level - there is of course a continuum.
These aerobic and anaerobic abilities cover a large spectrum of racing demands and for the most part form the core of cyclists' training priorities.
Naturally in many events (e.g. crits, track racing, team pursuits, mtb) neuromuscular demands are higher than for say pursuiting or time trialling. No aerobic anchor point (such as MAP or FTP) can define training of these neuromuscular requirements (and nor do they purport to).
In terms of simplicity - then an easily repeatable test for anyone with a power meter with a well understood protocol which guides training levels and corresponding adaptations (as well as measuring training loads/stresses) is, to me at least, a very simple outcome from all the "mumbo jumbo acronyms" that may be used.
Urkiola2 said:I am not saying all activities of cycling are a complete different sport, I am just saying that without changing dramatically, the training for a persuit rider or cyclocross or TdF contestant should be more specific to his/her discipline. The same happenes in track and field. There are many subunites within the same sport like 100m, 200m, 1500m, 3000m, 20k, marathon...etc, which metabolically speaking could vary but they all belong to the same sport, track and field. The training of a 1500m is not the same as the traiining for a marathon runner...
I would very much doubt that anyone here with any half decent knowledge of training is suggesting that a track pursuiter and a cyclocross rider would train the same way. Of course they have some common physiological demands but specificity of training to goal/target is a pretty well established and understood requirement.
That has been one of the great benefits of power meters in training - race demands and a rider's physiological characteristics and deficiencies can be better understood and training can be constructed accordingly.
