MAP Options

[Porkyboy]

Hi

A common method of MAP determination is to use a RAMP test with pre-determined appropriate (to the subject) wattages and load "steps" being set by a unit such as a CompuTrainer or a helper manually setting the wattages. From the data the maximum wattage sustained for a complete minute is taken as the MAP, that's my understanding anyway

Do the experts think that the results would be any different or any more or less valid if instead of steps the load was applied in a continuously increasing fashion (slope) until failure and then the data fed into WKO+ and the maximum 1 minute power extracted automatically by the software?

I just wondered if this might give a "truer" maximum 1 minute power and avoid the possibility of someone reaching failure 1-2 seconds before the end of a full minute and therefore only being credited with the previous lower completed 1 minute which would under-report their actual maximal 1 minute power?

Thanks for any help you are able to provide.

PBUK

 

[Alex Simmons]

Hi

A common method of MAP determination is to use a RAMP test with pre-determined appropriate (to the subject) wattages and load "steps" being set by a unit such as a CompuTrainer or a helper manually setting the wattages. From the data the maximum wattage sustained for a complete minute is taken as the MAP, that's my understanding anyway

Do the experts think that the results would be any different or any more or less valid if instead of steps the load was applied in a continuously increasing fashion (slope) until failure and then the data fed into WKO+ and the maximum 1 minute power extracted automatically by the software?

I just wondered if this might give a "truer" maximum 1 minute power and avoid the possibility of someone reaching failure 1-2 seconds before the end of a full minute and therefore only being credited with the previous lower completed 1 minute which would under-report their actual maximal 1 minute power?

Thanks for any help you are able to provide.

PBUK

A ramp rate of 5W/12-15-sec instead of 25-20W/min is preferable if it can be done but it is not necessary and doesn't really affect the final outcome that much.

What affects the outcome most is the overall ramp rate used.

 

[Porkyboy]

Hi Alex

A ramp rate of 5W/12-15-sec instead of 25-20W/min is preferable if it can be done but it is not necessary and doesn't really affect the final outcome that much. What affects the outcome most is the overall ramp rate used.

Thank you for that, the 5W/12-15 seconds sounds much more like what I had in mind in terms of a "slope" approach rather than a step approach.

By "overall ramp rate" I take it you mean the overall time taken to reach failure? The general standard seems to be to aim for 10-15 minutes, probably nearer 12-15 but not longer than 15 minutes for the ramp part of the test, would you agree with this?

Thanks,

PBUK

 

[Alex Simmons]

Hi Alex

Thank you for that, the 5W/12-15 seconds sounds much more like what I had in mind in terms of a "slope" approach rather than a step approach.

By "overall ramp rate" I take it you mean the overall time taken to reach failure? The general standard seems to be to aim for 10-15 minutes, probably nearer 12-15 but not longer than 15 minutes for the ramp part of the test, would you agree with this?

Thanks,

PBUK

How about reading about it here:
http://www.cyclecoach.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=70&Itemid=112

If you started at recovery level (for you) of ~ 125W and can go at 5W/12-sec for more than 15-min, then you have a pretty special engine. Even if you started at zero watts, the first 5 minutes of twiddling at silly low wattages will hardly make an impact, so I wouldn't be too concerned about the actual duration. The end will come soon enough.

 

[Porkyboy]

Hi

If you started at recovery level (for you) of ~ 125W and can go at 5W/12-sec for more than 15-min, then you have a pretty special engine. Even if you started at zero watts, the first 5 minutes of twiddling at silly low wattages will hardly make an impact, so I wouldn't be too concerned about the actual duration. The end will come soon enough.

Thanks, have read the article and now see how you approach it. Interested in this bit:

1. Elite male riders should use a 20 Wmin-1 ramp rate
2. Non-elite male riders should use a 25 Wmin-1 ramp rate

Why is the ramp rate higher for the non-elites?

Thanks,

PBUK

 

[frenchyge]

How about reading about it here:
http://www.cyclecoach.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=70&Itemid=112

Heh. Alex, isn't that your pictograph under the heading "Understanding Power?"

 

[daveryanwyoming]

Hi

Thanks, have read the article and now see how you approach it. Interested in this bit:

1. Elite male riders should use a 20 Wmin-1 ramp rate
2. Non-elite male riders should use a 25 Wmin-1 ramp rate

Why is the ramp rate higher for the non-elites?

Thanks,

PBUK

Try both and you'll understand. Think about holding each of those efforts in the last couple of minutes longer before bumping to the next power level....

Realistically I think it's more a data legacy issue in terms of the MAP test protocol that was used historically for elite or non elite riders. If you've got a large database of similar results in your files (as I'm sure Ric does) then it helps to see trends. For a self coached athlete it doesn't matter so much which one you choose as long as you continue to use the same protocol each time you test.

BTW, next to consistency in protocol each time you test, the most important thing about a MAP test IMO is to be really motivated in those last minutes and be mentally ready to hang on to the bitter end. The ramp rates are steep enough that your MAP changes quite a bit if you can hang on just one minute or even 30 seconds longer. The first half of the test is really easy and even the middle minutes shouldn't feel too bad but that final minute or two really forces you to dig deep and focus. It really helps to have an assistant to motivate me or at least to test on a day when I'm mentally prepared to dig really deep. Let up a minute or two early because it's so uncomfortable and the results are pretty meaningless.

-Dave

 

[daveryanwyoming]

Try both and you'll understand. Think about holding each of those efforts in the last couple of minutes longer before bumping to the next power level....

Another way to think about this:

If two riders do MAP tests one on each protocol and they both finish with their last power step at 400 watts.

The rider on the elite protocol will average 362.5 watts for the final four minutes with a MAP of 392.5 watts.

The rider on the non-elite protocol will average 352.5 watts for the final four minutes with a MAP of 390 watts.

So the tests yield a MAP difference of 2.5 watts, but the elite rider has to hold a substantially higher AP for the final minutes of the test.

Turn that around and think of your MAP as the average you can sustain for the final minute of the ramp and the rider on the non-elite protocol has a small advantage. Yeah, it's not night and day if you only look at the final minute, but it's a bit easier to sustain a steeper ramp rate.

-Dave

 

[Fightin Boba]

In addition to Alex's and Dave's comments, I might add that the ramp timer program on cyclecoach.com site http://www.cyclecoach.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=96&Itemid=117 is an excellent aid that you can download. Unless you have friend that will call out your ramps, doing mental math in the last minutes of the test is not something that I would recommend. Just run the program on a laptop while you do the test. Of course, it is still helpful to have a friend coax out the last 30-60 seconds of power from you.

 

[Alex Simmons]

Heh. Alex, isn't that your pictograph under the heading "Understanding Power?"

yes

 

[Alex Simmons]

Motivation is quite important and it is why for most people I recommend they do this with a friend there to cajole them, encourage, call out the next level, yell abuse whatever it takes to help them.

Often the mere fact that someone is observing the test does tend to be a bit motivational.

I have a local client (female) that has requested I scream constructive abuse at her next time so she doesn't pike out early It can be a fine line

As Dave says, the choice of ramp rate is simply due to the fact that there is years of accumulated data at those rates and we know how to interpret the data. Also, training levels based on MAP are quite broad and overlap.

Given what I understand of you, I would suggest the 25W/min rate.

 

[swampy1970]

Motivation is quite important and it is why for most people I recommend they do this with a friend there to cajole them, encourage, call out the next level, yell abuse whatever it takes to help them.

Often the mere fact that someone is observing the test does tend to be a bit motivational.

I have a local client (female) that has requested I scream constructive abuse at her next time so she doesn't pike out early It can be a fine line

As Dave says, the choice of ramp rate is simply due to the fact that there is years of accumulated data at those rates and we know how to interpret the data. Also, training levels based on MAP are quite broad and overlap.

Given what I understand of you, I would suggest the 25W/min rate.

In addition to going over the test protocol, do you have to go over the protocol for what's acceptable in terms of 'abuse'?

 

[Porkyboy]

Hi Alex

Given what I understand of you, I would suggest the 25W/min rate.

I did a RAMP test back in August 2006 when I was I think significantly less fit, but younger, than I am now. The ramp rate the coach set me at that time was 20W per minute starting at 100W and the test lasted about 13.5 minutes, my maximum 1 minute power at that time was 354W. I estimated my VO2 max at that time to be about 56ml/kg/min

Based on your experience would you suggest I stick with that protocol when I repeat the test shortly or would you still guide me towards 25W/min, maybe starting at a higher load initially?

As I'll be testing myself from here on I'd like to try my best to get it right first time!

Thanks very much.

PBUK

 

[rmur17]

Hi

A common method of MAP determination is to use a RAMP test with pre-determined appropriate (to the subject) wattages and load "steps" being set by a unit such as a CompuTrainer or a helper manually setting the wattages. From the data the maximum wattage sustained for a complete minute is taken as the MAP, that's my understanding anyway

Do the experts think that the results would be any different or any more or less valid if instead of steps the load was applied in a continuously increasing fashion (slope) until failure and then the data fed into WKO+ and the maximum 1 minute power extracted automatically by the software?

I just wondered if this might give a "truer" maximum 1 minute power and avoid the possibility of someone reaching failure 1-2 seconds before the end of a full minute and therefore only being credited with the previous lower completed 1 minute which would under-report their actual maximal 1 minute power?

Thanks for any help you are able to provide.

PBUK

just replying to the bolded part of the question.

if you fail let's say 50 seconds into your final step at Power X watts with a ramp rate of 25w/min, your MAP would not be X-25 or the last full minute completed at constant power.

Assuming the steps were simple jumps of 25W taken at minute intervals, your MAP would be ((X)*50 + (X-25)*10)/60. So you get full credit for that step taken to failure - even though 60 seconds wasn't completed.

 

[daveryanwyoming]

... So you get full credit for that step taken to failure - even though 60 seconds wasn't completed.

Yeah I was thinkin' along the same lines. The test doesn't require you to synchronize with minutes on the clock or integral minutes from start of test. Your last 60 seconds is your final minute it doesn't have to line up with the exact time when you last bumped up the power.

On a related note, don't fall into the trap of giving up at the end because you think you won't make another full minute. Every second counts so dig deep and hang on to the bitter end even if it ends up some odd place like 17 seconds into one of the "test minutes" it's still your final 60 seconds that is defined as your MAP.

I can't speak for Alex, but I do my testing with the non-elite protocol and I don't think you should worry about the single test you did a few years ago. I expect the data from that test isn't all that relevant to your current fitness or understanding of the test protocol.

Good luck and let us know how it goes,
-Dave

 

[Porkyboy]

Hi Dave

Good luck and let us know how it goes,
-Dave

You must be in need of a giggle! I'm not shy, I'll post the outcome, I can always try to put it down to my age.

Thanks for the advice everyone.

PBUK

 

[swampy1970]

Hi Dave

You must be in need of a giggle! I'm not shy, I'll post the outcome, I can always try to put it down to my age.

Thanks for the advice everyone.

PBUK

Remember, Chuck Norris is the only person to pass a MAP test.

 

[Alex Simmons]

Just start anew with the 25W/min ramp and stick with that.

You might be getting fitter but an elite you're not likely to be (no offence just reality) and as you have discovered, we are not getting any younger.

 

[Piotr]

Remember, Chuck Norris is the only person to pass a MAP test.

You mean by determining that he doesn't really have Maximal Aerobic Power? He must've just ran out of gears and stopped.

 

[Porkyboy]

Hi Dave, Alex, and All

Good luck and let us know how it goes,
-Dave

Well, I took on board the sage advice I was given and have now done a preliminary test to try out the methodology and the files I've set up. As requested I'm letting you know how I got on, short write-up, chart, and video available on my blog here.

Cheers all.

PBUK