Derive max theorical FTP from VO2max.

[midlife]

Am I right to assume that for a given Vo2Max there is a theorical max FTP a subject could reach.

If so is there a table or a formula to ballpark this number ?

----

The reason I ask : I have a low measured VO2max (3.6 L/min) , I have been training for 13 months (the vo2 number was taken right before training started) . My FTP has been flat (250-260w) since june. Been doing SST, 2x20, 2x30, 5x5 5 days a week for the last 6 weeks on the Computrainer ... still no visible gains. I suspect I might be grinding the last possible ftp-watts for my relatively low O2 uptake (ie limited genetics)... I could also not be training right... or I could simply be impatient

This is all recreational. I want to see how much I can still gain if any. I enjoy the training.

 

[frenchyge]

A couple questions:
1) your numbers listed are all absolute values rather than being normalized to body size (L/min/kg and W/kg), so is it just your absolute metrics that are low, or are your relative metrics low as well?
2) wouldn't your VO2max have improved over the 13 months as well, or was that already a highly trained state when the measurement was taken?

Answer to your question is: no, there's no litteral derivation. There are thumbrules and ranges to bracket populations, but the actual relationship between VO2max and FTP still includes individual variation.

 

[daveryanwyoming]

Well it's safe to say your FTP will never exceed your 3-5 minute MMP and there are published relationships between VO2 Max as a gas exchange rate and power similar durations so sure you could say your FTP will never exceed the power (min/max) required to elicit VO2 Max.

There are a couple of problems:

- There is no single power that elicits VO2 Max, but there's certainly a small range of powers that will get you to VO2 Max gas exchange rates in say 3 minutes or a lower power that will get you there in 4 or 5 minutes.

- Even if you know definitively the minimum power that elicits VO2 Max gas exchange rates in a given time your FTP as a function of that power is highly trainable and can range from less than 70% to more than 90% in some exceptional individuals. So that VO2 Max 'cap' on FTP has a wide range and only through continued training can you figure out how far you can take it.

- VO2 Max is trainable in and of itself. It won't change as much as FTP over time, but it's not as fast and hard a limit as was once believed. So you may have been at 3.6 liters/min when you first started, but there is still room for improvement.

There's a bunch of published formulas for estimating VO2 Max from absolute or weight scaled power but some debate over the best time frame and method for measuring the power. One I've seen a lot and one that happens to match my lab based VO2 Max tests is to take my best MMP for a full out 4 minute effort expressed in watts/kg:

VO2 Max (ml/kg/min) ~ 11.5(4 min MMP in w/kg)) + 3.5

But it's an estimate and folks argue the multipliers and the choice of 4 minute MMP but it happened to be close for me last time I was lab tested.

Anyway, assuming it's similar for you and taking a wild guess that you weigh 60 kg you'd expect a 4 minute MMP of ~ 4.9 watts/kg

But your FTP could range anywhere from approximately 3.5 to 4 or more w/kg with continued training even assuming your VO2 Max and 4 minute MMP don't change.

Yeah, there are a ton of swags in this example but the point is that you shouldn't take that lab result as an absolute limiter. Only through continued training will you find out what you're capable of and accepting psychological limiters like your initial VO2 Max lab result won't help and probably hurts your progress.

FWIW, 13 months isn't as long as it sounds in terms of training history and some of the changes you're working towards take years of consistent effort. So you're probably being a bit impatient. You might also check out one of the training plans offered by Alex, Hunter and others and maybe do some work with a coach to make sure you're training, resting and eating appropriately and to help you break through plateaus.

Good luck,
-Dave

[edit] As usual frenchyge managed to say it at lot more crisply and beat me to the punch... so yeah, what he said

 

[midlife]

FrenchygE,

Relative numbers will help figure out the performance I can get out of the watts but I am not sure they will affect the watts themselves (which is what I am trying to increase). I.E if I add 10 kg of fat I will still probably have the same O2 volume and the same watts ... but obviously performance (watts/kg, speed, climbs, aero) will go down. I'm 77 kg ... so that that`s (was) a 48 relative Vo2max ... but even if I was 60kg my question would be the same. How much watts can 3.6L get you ?

I see the Vo2max like a carburator. If it can only provide a certain amount of fuel I guess one carburator will get you to certain max number of HP.

I will have the second answer next week. I am having my vo2max measured again. It will be interesting to see if it has changed.

 

[DancenMacabre]

I know many of the smart guys on these forums - that means you Dave, Frenchy - have probably heard the OP's question before.

For me though, it is super interesting.

Like Dave says, years of smart, well-planned training are the only way to get to those absolute figures and potential. He mentioned how the OP might get anywhere from 3.5 to > 4 w/kg even if his 4MMP didn't change for example.

But let's put that aside for a minute. My interest is in what the potential upper range might be. For example, if there was an accurate enough calculation out there to truly figure out my potential FTP range and it ended up being, hmm, let's say 3.4-3.8 w/kg.

Assuming winning medals and competing at the highest level were my goals, (they are!!!!), then the FTP calculation of just 3.4-3.8 would tell me that I can probably forget about ever becoming a pro road racer. If it said I could reach a potential FTP of 4.8-.53, then a pro career would seem a distinct possibility - provided excellent training, consistency, yadda yadda

On the other hand, a low potential FTP of say 3.4 to 4, might tell me that I should spend more time building up short term and sprint power since my profile already has a higher 5 second power than any other metric.

A few questions spring to mind:

How much can vo2max actually be increased in %?
Some places I read it can be 15% with dedicated training, while individual anecdotes suggest 30-35%.

Is it accurate to say that while vo2max potential & trainability may vary, that there is some upper limit on what % you can increase it, and by extension, FTP as a % of vo2max ?(the gas exchange angle I think) Meaning nobody is going to go from a vo2max of 45 ml/kg/min to 65 ml/kg/min, for a woman at least.


If I use the equations Dave shared, then I get:

VO2 Max (ml/kg/min) = 48.5 which is just a pinch above average for a woman, with untrained subjects, at least per wiki, showing vo2max = 38 ml/kg/min

Using the gas exchange and/or LT angle then - 70-90% of 3.9 (4MMP) for me = FT of 2.8 - 3.6....

 

[daveryanwyoming]

A lot of folk's have tried to deduce end potential by measuring single characteristics like VO2 Max. When I first started cycling that was the way the USCF screened junior and up and coming cyclists. Trouble is some folks have tremendous potential based on high early career VO2 Max test results and others seem pretty hopeless at the outset. But over time many of those with high potential never delivered on the promise and some of the hopeless pushed on because they loved the sport and became quite sucessful.

I know a local rider who was basically told that he should enjoy himself but give up on dreams of riding at the national level after just such a VO2 Max test he took in the early '80s at the OTC in Colorado Springs. He didn't accept the result and eventually raced at the world cup level winning an awful lot of local, regional and state championships along the way.

Anyway lot's of sports governing bodies have tried to do just what you're asking, to predict success based on a test. In practice it doesn't work very well.

If you want to know how far you can take it, you've got to commit yourself and find out the hard way.

Good luck,
-Dave

 

[DancenMacabre]

A lot of folk's have tried to deduce end potential by measuring single characteristics like VO2 Max. When I first started cycling that was the way the USCF screened junior and up and coming cyclists. Trouble is some folks have tremendous potential based on high early career VO2 Max test results and others seem pretty hopeless at the outset. But over time many of those with high potential never delivered on the promise and some of the hopeless pushed on because they loved the sport and became quite successful.

I know a local rider who was basically told that he should enjoy himself but give up on dreams of riding at the national level after just such a VO2 Max test he took in the early '80s at the OTC in Colorado Springs. He didn't accept the result and eventually raced at the world cup level winning an awful lot of local, regional and state championships along the way.

Anyway lot's of sports governing bodies have tried to do just what you're asking, to predict success based on a test. In practice it doesn't work very well.

If you want to know how far you can take it, you've got to commit yourself and find out the hard way.

Good luck,
-Dave

Ah see, I thought you might say something like this

I understand what you mean in your comments. These metrics we are discussing, assuming they are accurate, are only part of the equation. Since it is a rare thing that 'all other things being equal' actually happens in the real world, I can see where higher potential or better test metrics do not necessarily equal better results or a more successful career, 'specially in the long term. Plus, imagine the pressure especially on a young person of being the 'chosen' one. Lots and lots of stories with sad endings for such individuals.

Still, I kinda figured the better sports programs and countries out there might have some pretty decent ways of finding or identifying talent.

I suppose I asked because hey, time is after all limited/finite - at least in terms of our athletic peak. Besides I'm not a kid either so I best get with it soon if any athletic achievements are coming my way before I start falling off the wagon!

P.S. lemme know about that 4.8-5.3 potential FTP just in case a pro career actually is possible

 

[Alex Simmons]

FTP is a function of a few things:
- VO2max (somewhat trainable)
- % of VO2max sustainable at threshold (significantly trainable)
- Gross Metabolic Efficiency (not very trainable)

 

[Alex Simmons]

Still, I kinda figured the better sports programs and countries out there might have some pretty decent ways of finding or identifying talent.

They do. It's called racing.

 

[frenchyge]

If I use the equations Dave shared, then I get:

VO2 Max (ml/kg/min) = 48.5 which is just a pinch above average for a woman, with untrained subjects, at least per wiki, showing vo2max = 38 ml/kg/min

Using the gas exchange and/or LT angle then - 70-90% of 3.9 (4MMP) for me = FT of 2.8 - 3.6....

If you're using a current 4min MMP, then I don't think you qualify as untrained anymore (ie, after 3-4 months of dedicated training).

Also, 48.5 is ~28% higher than 38. That's a pretty good sized pinch.... at least a dash if not a scoop.

 

[frenchyge]

Relative numbers will help figure out the performance I can get out of the watts but I am not sure they will affect the watts themselves (which is what I am trying to increase).

Sure. The reason I asked was because you had stated that you're numbers were 'low', although depending on one's body size they could actually be pretty good.

I see the Vo2max like a carburator. If it can only provide a certain amount of fuel I guess one carburator will get you to certain max number of HP.

That's a simplified analogy, but even in that context putting a large carb on a small motor won't necessarily increase the HP. You have to understand the entire system to understand where the limitations exist.

 

[midlife]

I could ask my question some other way.

Have you ever seen a guy with 3.6L Vo2max get to 400 ftp ?
Have you ever seen a guy with 3.6L Vo2max get to 350 ftp ?
Have you ever seen a guy with 3.6L Vo2max get to 300 ftp ?

 

[acoggan]

I could ask my question some other way.

Have you ever seen a guy with 3.6L Vo2max get to 400 ftp ?
Have you ever seen a guy with 3.6L Vo2max get to 350 ftp ?
Have you ever seen a guy with 3.6L Vo2max get to 300 ftp ?

No, no, and no.

 

[DancenMacabre]

They do. It's called racing.

Or maybe it is called testing actually:

I found this and a bunch of other posts about some methods used by Australia and their pretty darn successful sport institute:

Force-velocity relationship and maximal power on a... [Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1987] - PubMed result

A vertical jump test was used by the AIS as part of their talent ID program when searching for new 500 m riders. If you search their website, you might be able to find the report detailing these results.

Maybe that is unique or singular to Australia, but they sure have done great in track cycling. Perhaps it oughta be tried here in the states too.

Not being argumentative but it seems some tests are part of talent id - do you agree?

If you're using a current 4min MMP, then I don't think you qualify as untrained anymore (ie, after 3-4 months of dedicated training).

Also, 48.5 is ~28% higher than 38. That's a pretty good sized pinch.... at least a dash if not a scoop.

Bahhh! I hate getting just barely sufficient to whet the appetite but not nearly enough to satiate. Hand me the utensils because I'd like a full scoop or three of that vo2max stuff

Being totally serious, I bet most of those racers I admire like Katie Compton, Marianne Vos, Kristin Armstrong could sit on lazy boy chairs, doing nothing but eating several *scoops* of ice cream every day and still have vo2max >> 60


EDIT: Saw Dr. Coggan's post here and oh well, there goes my shot at 300 probably. By the 4MMP equation from Dave, I'm at 48.5 relative which equals 3.39 or so absolute. The man tells it like it is so I wouldn't bet against him being wrong.

 

[acoggan]

VO2 Max is trainable in and of itself. It won't change as much as FTP over time, but it's not as fast and hard a limit as was once believed.

No one knowledgable has ever believed that VO2max isn't trainable.

 

[midlife]

No, no, and no.

Here's my answer...

I know where I'm at now.

How about 280 ?

Thanks Doc !

 

[daveryanwyoming]

...I know where I'm at now...

Do you? So you think you topped out at your genetic potential in 13 months of training. If so you are indeed a fast adapter.

Let us know what sort of numbers you achieve in that upcoming VO2 Max test...

 

[midlife]

Do you? So you think you topped out at your genetic potential in 13 months of training. If so you are indeed a fast adapter.

Let us know what sort of numbers you achieve in that upcoming VO2 Max test...

Never said I tought I topped out. But I now know at most I can gain 40 watts (with current o2 volume). It is important for me to know that. I can now manage my expectations a little better, maybe concentrate on losing weight instead of grinding 6 months for 5 watts. It`s all good.

My test is booked for saturday. An increase in volume would make it interesting.

 

[frenchyge]

Here's my answer...
I know where I'm at now.
Thanks Doc !

Yeah, well those were much easier questions. Here we thought you wanted to actually *learn* something.

Never said I tought I topped out. But I now know at most I can gain 40 watts (with current volume).

How do you know that, unless you are assuming that your VO2max hasn't improved after 13 months of training? After your next test, you'll have to come back and re-ask your questions. If the answer is "yes" for any of them, then you *still* won't know what to expect for yourself.

 

[Alex Simmons]

Or maybe it is called testing actually:

I found this and a bunch of other posts about some methods used by Australia and their pretty darn successful sport institute:

Not being argumentative but it seems some tests are part of talent id - do you agree?

Of course testing is important. Tests are indicative of the physiological. However endurance cycling performance is multifactorial.

Pithy Power Proverb: The best predictor of performance is performance itself - A. Coggan

The vertical jump test was used by AIS to ID potential talent pool of women/girls IIRC for sprint events, not endurance cycling. They are worlds apart.

The best tests for estimating ECP are time trial power tests and/or Maximal Aerobic Power test.

If someone shows talent in another aerobic endurance sport, then there is a reasonable liklyhood of potenital for talent in ECP.