FTP, MAP and 20minute test. Please help

gbr236

Hi

I am relatively new to more scientific training
Using a power crank (SRM) and a mac computer with garmin connect.
I understand that i need to measure 20minute max power FTP and mulitply by 1.23 to get my MAP
From here can calculate training zones.
My garmin gives me average power, max power, max average power (20minutes), normalised power.
Which of these should i take after my 20minute test?

About 8months ago had a 'fitness test' which demonstrated a MAP of 410watts and a LT threshold power of 360watts. Don't want to repeat the expense just now hence the attempts above.

Thanks

SBezza

If you are going to base training zones on MAP, do a MAP test to get an accurate figure, rather than just multiple a 20 min test by 1.23. If you wanted to guessimate your FTP then a 20 min test is normal, but you do need to be wary as the true FTP might be out compared with a calculation of say 95% of the 20 min figure. If doing it on a turbo I would expect the AP and the NP to be very similar, in fact on the road it should be pretty similar as well.

For working with power I would suggest better software than Garmin Connect, for a free one choose Golden Cheetah, or there is Training Peaks WKO+ if you were happy to pay. This will give you far better post ride anaylsis.

gbr236

Can I do a map test myself?
I've also seen multiples of max steady state power (whatever that means) being quoted for Map
Will look at new software

Could you spare a moment to explain average vs normalised?


Thanks

SBezza

Take a look at this post regarding doing a MAP test.

viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12880335

As for AP and NP, ave power is what you have actually averaged with zero points etc, NP is the power you could assume to be able to do if the ride was steady state. ie a ride with lots of hills for example will produce higher powers for the uphills, but have lots of zero power on the downhill parts, this might result in a low AP by the NP might be alot higher, due to going hard uphill.

Visit the training peaks website for a full explanation of the different terms.

amaferanga

Why would you estimate your FTP and then use an arbitrary number to estimate you MAP and use that to set your training zones instead of just using your FTP estimate to set training zones?

bigpikle

just do a good 20 min test - good as in a well paced steady max effort - and base your zones off 95% of that. It might not be the exact FTP number to the nearest watt, but it will be more than fine for basing zones on and as you do more training and testing you will quickly realise if its a little out one way or the other. With a 2% error in the power meter anyway its not going to matter...

ric/rstsport

gbr236 wrote:

Hi

I am relatively new to more scientific training
Using a power crank (SRM) and a mac computer with garmin connect.
I understand that i need to measure 20minute max power FTP and mulitply by 1.23 to get my MAP
From here can calculate training zones.
My garmin gives me average power, max power, max average power (20minutes), normalised power.
Which of these should i take after my 20minute test?

About 8months ago had a 'fitness test' which demonstrated a MAP of 410watts and a LT threshold power of 360watts. Don't want to repeat the expense just now hence the attempts above.

Thanks

Well done on your move to scientific training. this should help your fitness

Multiplying your 20-min power by 1.23 will possibly give you an incorrect MAP figure (although it could be right depending on a variety of things). In my experience people's 20-min max effort will vary from about 75 to 81% of MAP (although you may fall outside of this range depending on your prior training, or lack of).

If you are doing a MAP test, i would suggest a 25 W/min ramp rate and use this calculator to ascertain your power ranges for your training zones http://www.rstsport.com/?event=training&feature=zones

It is highly, highly unlikely that your LT is 360 W if your MAP is 410 W. This would suggest that something has gone wrong with one of the tests. Your LT is way too high a % of MAP - it should be closer to 270 W if your MAP is 410 W.

With most people (including elite, world class cyclists riding e.g. Tour de France) you'd expect their FTP (which is about 10 to 15% higher than LT) to be about 75ish % of MAP.

Ric

ric/rstsport

amaferanga wrote:

Why would you estimate your FTP and then use an arbitrary number to estimate you MAP and use that to set your training zones instead of just using your FTP estimate to set training zones?

There's nothing wrong with using MAP to set your training zones. For e.g. British Cycling do this, as do many others. Agree about the calculation to estimate MAP tho.

ric

gbr236

Thanks for all the advice
If I do a 20 minute effort do I just use the average mormalaised power for calculations to get FTP and MAP ?

Alex_Simmons/RST

gbr236 wrote:

Thanks for all the advice
If I do a 20 minute effort do I just use the average mormalaised power for calculations to get FTP and MAP ?

If you do a 20-min all out test, your FTP will likely be somewhere in the vicinity of 89-95% of your 20-min average power. Don't use Normalised Power.

Suggest starting with 92% of 20-min power. 95% will over estimate for a lot of people.

Then go and buy the book Training and Racing with a Power Meter, 2nd edition.

bahzob

As I mentioned in my previous post, in my experience at least the MAP was remarkably close in terms of estimating FTP and consequently setting training zones. As per Ric's comment "With most people ... you'd expect their FTP ... to be about 75ish % of MAP." I did MAP of 434W and rode a 60 minute pb of 325W a few days later.

I prefer a ramp test over the other option of a fixed duration test.

This is because it's very precisely repeatable and takes away pacing as a variable (once the protocol is clear, which the responses to my post help with). If you have a sudden change in form you will detect that on the first ramp test you perform, other tests may not.

This is because riding a standard constant power timed interval has a catch 22 built into it that to pace best you really need to know the result (you can't go all out for 20 minutes). There is the risk you go too hard/too slow with the result feeling wrong in consequence. And this is especially likely to happen if you are having large changes of form between tests.

If you cant do a ramp test/dont want to then I would suggest a 3 min test instead. The average power from this will be pretty close to your MAP. The advantage of this test is that its short enough in duration for you to attempt several during a session so if you blow up on the first one you can try again.

indjke

is MAP equal to the "power at maximum oxygen consumption"?

okgo

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

gbr236 wrote:

Thanks for all the advice
If I do a 20 minute effort do I just use the average mormalaised power for calculations to get FTP and MAP ?

If you do a 20-min all out test, your FTP will likely be somewhere in the vicinity of 89-95% of your 20-min average power. Don't use Normalised Power.

Suggest starting with 92% of 20-min power. 95% will over estimate for a lot of people.

Then go and buy the book Training and Racing with a Power Meter, 2nd edition.

What terrain do you reccomend for those that don't have a 20 minute hill nearby? I did it in Richmond Park and I don't think the result was that reliable as there were hills, downhills, corners etc.

I know it doesn't matter too much whether you're a few watts out on FTP, but would be nice to get a proper figure as the only hour efforts I've done have been on silly TT courses, or open road circuits which again present issues with regards to stopping at lights etc.

Suppose doing it on a turbo would work ok, just 60 mins all out?

SBezza

okgo wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

gbr236 wrote:

Thanks for all the advice
If I do a 20 minute effort do I just use the average mormalaised power for calculations to get FTP and MAP ?

If you do a 20-min all out test, your FTP will likely be somewhere in the vicinity of 89-95% of your 20-min average power. Don't use Normalised Power.

Suggest starting with 92% of 20-min power. 95% will over estimate for a lot of people.

Then go and buy the book Training and Racing with a Power Meter, 2nd edition.

What terrain do you reccomend for those that don't have a 20 minute hill nearby? I did it in Richmond Park and I don't think the result was that reliable as there were hills, downhills, corners etc.

I know it doesn't matter too much whether you're a few watts out on FTP, but would be nice to get a proper figure as the only hour efforts I've done have been on silly TT courses, or open road circuits which again present issues with regards to stopping at lights etc.

Suppose doing it on a turbo would work ok, just 60 mins all out?

I do my test on a flat road, that has no lights and only one junction for me to slow down for. Alternatively is you can stomach the turbo do it on that (though your turbo power might not be the same as road power). I have to ride about 40 mins to get to where I do my tests, suppose you might have to travel a bit further however if RP is not ideal.

Alex_Simmons/RST

okgo wrote:

What terrain do you reccomend for those that don't have a 20 minute hill nearby?

I don't specify long climbs, just any course that avoids as mjuch as possible having to stop pedalling. I do mine on a 3.8km loop which is gently rolling/flattish terrain and on which there is no requirement to stop.

Turbo is fine, however many have difficulty sustaining the same power on a trainer as they can outdoors, so it might provide a lower power result.

oxoneil

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

gbr236 wrote:

Thanks for all the advice
If I do a 20 minute effort do I just use the average mormalaised power for calculations to get FTP and MAP ?

If you do a 20-min all out test, your FTP will likely be somewhere in the vicinity of 89-95% of your 20-min average power. Don't use Normalised Power.

Suggest starting with 92% of 20-min power. 95% will over estimate for a lot of people.

Then go and buy the book Training and Racing with a Power Meter, 2nd edition.

Interesting that you say don't use NP to work out FTP, not seen that before.

Herbsman

oxoneil wrote:

Interesting that you say don't use NP to work out FTP, not seen that before.

From Alex' blog:

Sin of Sins #7 – Using NP from rides < < 1-hour
“My 20-min max NP from that crit was 378 watts, so is my FTP 95% of that, i.e. 359 watts?”

Er, no.

Apart from falling for SOS #6, the efficacy of the Normalised Power algorithm in providing a “normalised iso-power equivalent” begins to drop somewhat as the duration shortens to substantially less than one hour. 20-minutes is in that grey zone. 30-minutes ain’t too shabby but I think anything less than 40-50 minutes is stretching the envelope a bit much for a reliable number from which to make an estimate of FTP.

oxoneil

Herbsman wrote:

oxoneil wrote:

Interesting that you say don't use NP to work out FTP, not seen that before.

From Alex' blog:

Sin of Sins #7 – Using NP from rides < < 1-hour
“My 20-min max NP from that crit was 378 watts, so is my FTP 95% of that, i.e. 359 watts?”

Er, no.

Apart from falling for SOS #6, the efficacy of the Normalised Power algorithm in providing a “normalised iso-power equivalent” begins to drop somewhat as the duration shortens to substantially less than one hour. 20-minutes is in that grey zone. 30-minutes ain’t too shabby but I think anything less than 40-50 minutes is stretching the envelope a bit much for a reliable number from which to make an estimate of FTP.

Thanks