Derive max theorical FTP from VO2max.

[midlife]

Those are probably reasonable values for the athlete's Vaughter's has worked with, but I expect they're on the high side for most of the folks on these forums. Hard to say, but I expect most mid rank amateurs haven't taken their FVR quite as high as 90% and I suspect there aren't a lot of folks with GME above 24%. Can't say without testing but I'd guess the 72 conversion factor slightly underestimates VO2 max in liters per minute for riders with less training.

I took the Vo2max and power numbers from group 1 (Elite US National Cyclists) in the Coyle Study (1991) and their ratio averages 68 .

Group 2 is state classe athletes and the average is 63

http://tinyurl.com/y8mckfu
A lot of good examples of Vo2max, FTP, %of vo2 and GME in that study. Very interesting.

 

[Alex Simmons]

MAP:FTP - useful and generally falling between 80% and 90%

Nearly

FTP:MAP is typically 72%-77%, some are outside that range (I know of those at both ends) but that's where the majority fall. Although as you correctly point out, MAP is protocol dependent and so the range I quote above is from using the RST/British Cycling protocol.

 

[dhk2]

Great paper to study, thanks for the link.

 

[Fightin Boba]

Nearly

FTP:MAP is typically 72%-77%, some are outside that range (I know of those at both ends) but that's where the majority fall. Although as you correctly point out, MAP is protocol dependent and so the range I quote above is from using the RST/British Cycling protocol.

Thank you for correcting my misinformation. I also incorrectly listed the ratios as MAP:FTP and 5min MMP:FTP, when FTP:MAP and FTP:5min MMP are correct. And as Dave said:

a rider's FTP to 5 minute MMP ratio is typically going to be lower than their FTP to MAP ratio

 

[dhk2]

If I'm reading correctly, Table 3 of Coyle's paper has the "72 factor" ((watts/(O2 l/min)) for each test subject listed in a column defined as "cycling economy". Note it averaged 76.3 for the elite riders, 74.3 for the "state champ" group. From this, appears 72 watts/ (l/min) is a good figure for a local racer or well-trained club cyclist.

In Table 5, the parameters that stand out to me between the two test groups are the % type I muscle fibers and the capillary density values. Rather than just being "inherited", it's good to see that the % type I fiber does improve with years of training (Fig. 8).

 

[midlife]

I took the Vo2max and power numbers from group 1 (Elite US National Cyclists) in the Coyle Study (1991) and their ratio averages 68 .

Group 2 is state classe athletes and the average is 63
.

Ignore these numbers. I did not use the right data to replicate Vaughter`s 72 ratio.

 

[daveryanwyoming]

If I'm reading correctly, Table 3 of Coyle's paper has the "72 factor" ((watts/(O2 l/min)) for each test subject listed in a column defined as "cycling economy". Note it averaged 76.3 for the elite riders, 74.3 for the "state champ" group. From this, appears 72 watts/ (l/min) is a good figure for a local racer or well-trained club cyclist...

Close, but the 'cycling economy' defined in the paper is average power during the 40K TT(FTP) divided by VO2 at LT, not VO2 Max. But the data exists to back out the FTP/VO2 Max conversion factor that Vaughters uses as midlife did.

Just take the average power listed for each rider's 40K TT and divide it by the lab tested VO2 Max in liters/minute listed for each rider. As midlife noted it comes out to 68 on the average for the elite riders and 63 on the average for the state level riders.

In Table 5, the parameters that stand out to me between the two test groups are the % type I muscle fibers and the capillary density values. Rather than just being "inherited", it's good to see that the % type I fiber does improve with years of training (Fig. 8).

Yep, I agree that's interesting and encouraging.

-Dave

 

[tonyzackery]

In Table 5, the parameters that stand out to me between the two test groups are the % type I muscle fibers and the capillary density values. Rather than just being "inherited", it's good to see that the % type I fiber does improve with years of training (Fig. 8).

This happens to be the author's hypothesis, and I agree lends some promise. However, this is a contentious matter amongst pundits and there are studies that exist that say otherwise; that the composition of I and II fibers doesn't change, but that IIb fibers convert to more endurance friendly IIa fibers over time.

For a typeII guy like me, there is still hope. Though I accept that it will take awhile, it's the journey, not necessarily the destination that's fascinating...

 

[midlife]

As midlife noted it comes out to 68 on the average for the elite riders and 63 on the average for the state level riders.

Yes but by rereading dhk2's post I realized that what vaughters said was that dividing power by 72 should give you O2 in L/min ... not VO2max. So my numbers were wrong. Sorry.

 

[midlife]

the simple formula i've seen estimates o2 l/min by just dividing watts by the "efficiency factor" of 72. Ie, 300w aerobic output equals 4.167 l/min.

The formula attributed to jonathan vaughters in the book road bike training by f. Matheny. Have no idea how valid the estimate is, or if it has any scientific basis at all.

ttt

 

[daveryanwyoming]

Yes but by rereading dhk2's post I realized that what vaughters said was that dividing power by 72 should give you O2 in L/min ... not VO2max. ....

Good catch, if Vaughters was really talking about cycling efficiency as defined in the Coyle paper or power extracted for a given O2 uptake rate and not the limiting rate (VO2 Max) then he's saying riders in general have a submaximal GME of ~20.6%, the elite riders in this paper came in at ~ 21.9% and the state level riders at ~ 21.3% at their respective 40K TT paces.

I think both results are interesting and your results aren't wrong, they just look at a different metric and the one you first questioned with this thread. BTW, how did the recent test come out?

-Dave

 

[midlife]

. BTW, how did the recent test come out?

Postponed.

I stopped training last monday because of health issues. Back on the bike tomorrow... I will do it next saturday or the week after.

 

[dhk2]

In the book I mentioned, Vaughters explained how to use hill climb results to compute power output and "VO2 max". Directions say to find a steep hill with a steady 6-8% grade that takes "at least 10 minutes to climb". Average power for the interval is calculated from the vertical rate of climb, then the "72 factor" is applied to estimate "VO2 max".

Seems to me power for a 10 minute max climb effort would be between a VO2 max test protocol and an FTP interval. Suppose this discussion underscores the importance of "protocol dependent" as was mentioned above.

 

[daveryanwyoming]

...Seems to me power for a 10 minute max climb effort would be between a VO2 max test protocol and an FTP interval. Suppose this discussion underscores the importance of "protocol dependent" as was mentioned above.

Yeah, that's a very protocol specific test and doesn't really relate to FTP at all, just his idea (maybe backed with rider data, hard to say) of a correlation between power for moderately steep 10+ minute climbs and VO2 Max.

I have no idea how accurate that is, but I wouldn't put a lot of faith in it in part because 10 minute efforts still have a fair amount of AWC contribution and VO2 Max is a purely aerobic measure.

But that protocol definitely isn't a way to go from known FTP to VO2 Max in one simple step, data from Coyle's paper (not the cycling efficiency term listed in the paper but the FTP to actual VO2 Max ratio for each rider) is a closer swag with a fair variance across the riders in the study.

-Dave

 

[DancenMacabre]

This happens to be the author's hypothesis, and I agree lends some promise. However, this is a contentious matter amongst pundits and there are studies that exist that say otherwise; that the composition of I and II fibers doesn't change, but that IIb fibers convert to more endurance friendly IIa fibers over time.

For a typeII guy like me, there is still hope. Though I accept that it will take awhile, it's the journey, not necessarily the destination that's fascinating...

I dont know the theory around all this. But that paper someone put here says that the long term enduros had zero or close to zero percent of those fast twitch (II-b I think) fibers left.

Gotta think that everybody starts off with some right? If you become an enduro though then you lose them in time with training. That is what you are getting at saying 'it will take awhile, etc'?

^^^If you have a ftp/pVo2max ratio above 85% (arbitrary), I'd speculate your aerobic ceiling (power produced at Vo2max) is limiting your FTP.

As mentioned previously, your absolute Vo2max (liters of O2 utilized) will plateau quickly, but the power one can produce at Vo2max can increase consistently with proper training. Be careful with the semantics here as "power at Vo2max" and "Vo2max", although frequently misused interchangeably, are not the same. It would appear the author may know what they mean to convey, but the audience sometimes does not understand what was written in the same manner...

My $0.02CAN worth...

Tony, something you said here that I am not sure about. Power at VO2 max vs. VO2 max.

I get it that VO2 max = maximum O2 that the body can consume during hard exercise like cycling. So this is measured in oxygen. Got that.

Now what about power @ VO2 max? Does this mean 4 minute power? 5 minute? 6 min power? Other?

Guess you can make more power at VO2 max even without lifting VO2 max right - because you can become more efficient pedaling your bike(a little), have more anaerobic capacity, higher LT.

Most of the ex-physio books I picked up talk of ideal exercise intensity at some % of VO2 max - like 70-85% as very good for building LT.

 

[bubsy]

Though I accept that it will take awhile, it's the journey, not necessarily the destination that's fascinating...

Indeed sucess can be measured in many ways but it's a hell of a fun ride (pun intended) gettin there.

 

[bubsy]

Now what about power @ VO2 max? Does this mean 4 minute power? 5 minute? 6 min power? Other?
.

I'm sure there are many pro/elite riders out there that have the same absolute V02 max as me and you but the power they can produce for 3 - 6min would likely leave me wondering where the hyperdrive switch is on my bike because that's what l would need to stay with them when we're both at full tilt for the same duration.
V02 max is a poor predictor for future performance in so many ways!

 

[tonyzackery]

I dont know the theory around all this. But that paper someone put here says that the long term enduros had zero or close to zero percent of those fast twitch (II-b I think) fibers left.

Gotta think that everybody starts off with some right? If you become an enduro though then you lose them in time with training. That is what you are getting at saying 'it will take awhile, etc'?



Tony, something you said here that I am not sure about. Power at VO2 max vs. VO2 max.

I get it that VO2 max = maximum O2 that the body can consume during hard exercise like cycling. So this is measured in oxygen. Got that.

Now what about power @ VO2 max? Does this mean 4 minute power? 5 minute? 6 min power? Other?

Guess you can make more power at VO2 max even without lifting VO2 max right - because you can become more efficient pedaling your bike(a little), have more anaerobic capacity, higher LT.

Most of the ex-physio books I picked up talk of ideal exercise intensity at some % of VO2 max - like 70-85% as very good for building LT.

The term "power @ Vo2max" is that lab tested lowest power output (in watts) that results in a plateau in Vo2max (yes, it's measured in liters of O2). As most have not been lab tested, ad hoc surrogates for 'power @ Vo2max' can be average power over a 4min. to 5min. (6min. may be stretching it a bit) duration as it's generally accepted that it takes a person around 2-3mins. (longer on the first rep, shorter on reps thereafter) to reach Vo2max provided the subject is working at a sufficient intensity. In addition, many people can continue working at that Vo2max power for several minutes or more once the plateau has been reached.

And yes, you can increase the amount of power you can produce before the leveling off of Vo2max. Focused training will allow your working muscles to better buffer energy metabolism by-products (hydrogen/phosphate ions) that serve to slow us down at higher power intensities when stored glycogen becomes the primary energy source.

As mentioned, I've been tested and with relatively little focused work over a couple months, I increased my power @ Vo2max by 25w. In the span of about 4 months I increased my lab tested lactate threshold by 10w, and at all measured wattage points my heartrate during the second test was significantly lower demonstrating increased fitness/efficiency IMO.

I'm not expert on this stuff as most of the coaches on this forum have probably forgot more than I profess to know. I like to think that I know just enough to be dangerous to the cat. 3s I currently compete against, and enough to worry the cat. 1 and 2s when I get up there next year; and I only got on a road bike 3yrs ago.

 

[Alex Simmons]

VO2max can be induced by riding at intensities significantly less than 3-min to 6-min mean maximal powers. In fact riding at not a lot more than FTP can induce VO2max due to the slow component of VO2max.

 

[dhk2]

In re-reading the paper, I see that VO2 max was determined from gas analysis during an 8-10 minute test. The "watts output @ VO2 max" isn't shown or discussed anywhere. Would guess this is because it's such a transient value, seen only when lactate is climbing quickly near the final minutes of the protocol.

In the paper, when "%VO2max" is discussed, say relative to LT or one-hour power, that's in terms of the gas-analysis measurement, not some "power-proxy" figure. Seems to me the "%VO2max" achieved during the one-hour test could shed some light on the individual's state of training and genetics, but obviously average one-hour power output is the main thing.