MAP test protocal
- Thread starter kclw
- Start date
kclw said:
with the RST or BC protocol
25 W/min non-elite males
20 W/min elite males
15 W/min females
see http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=powerstern
http://cyclecoach.com/pageID-downloadPages-Calculate_your_MAP_zones.htm
http://cyclecoach.com/pageID-downloadPages-MAP_test.htm
Ric
CCA: 30W every 3 minutes Elite Males. This allows for a bit more stabilization at the level to facilitate blood-lactate testing, HR observation, etc.
Aim to have the test last at least 12 minutes (4 stages) maybe no more than 24 (8 stages).
Whatever the protocol, stick to it for comparability.
Aim to have the test last at least 12 minutes (4 stages) maybe no more than 24 (8 stages).
Whatever the protocol, stick to it for comparability.
I've done both tests and definitely prefer the BCF/RST protocol. There's a large base of data for the BCF/RST test versus performance at different durations (FTP for example) and I don't recall seeing anything like that for the CCA test. I don't think the CCA test is really that useful on a long-term basis.Spunout said:
Anyway it's more fun peaking at 500+ W versus 450 or so
okay I hadn't seen those plans.Spunout said:
BCF test - no lactate but that's a feature not a bug. Honestly with readily available PM's these days who cares about measuring lactate levels? Another red herring IMHO (with apologies to RCHung).
Last comment of mine was a joke. My gold standard aerobic test is a full-on 40k TT in benign conditions ... but for me 75% of MAP is always spot-on and it's a relatively quick & easy test. Not as good training though
I thought it was a trick question designed to get one to think about why you would use a different ramp rate for male vs. female MAP tests.ric_stern/RST said:dunno... i thought it was a trick question
Are there different "zones" based on the MAP results for male and female riders?
There reason I am asking is different test protocals have considerably different results.
Since Andy is talking about his wife.
My wife fails at 400 is the jump is 25w every minute.
fails at 300 if the jump is 30w every three minutes (old CCA protcal)
fails at 275 if the jump is 25w every three minutes (new CCA protcal for females)
As you can see these are quite different results.
I always thought that goal of a MAP test is to find a person maximal aerobic power. If the jumps are too short then the anerobic system effects the values. If the jumps are too large then fatique may prevent them from achieving their MAP.
Since Andy is talking about his wife.
My wife fails at 400 is the jump is 25w every minute.
fails at 300 if the jump is 30w every three minutes (old CCA protcal)
fails at 275 if the jump is 25w every three minutes (new CCA protcal for females)
As you can see these are quite different results.
I always thought that goal of a MAP test is to find a person maximal aerobic power. If the jumps are too short then the anerobic system effects the values. If the jumps are too large then fatique may prevent them from achieving their MAP.
Pick a test protocol and stick to it.
The test is MAP in itself regardless, and is only comparable to others under the same protocol. Adjust your zones and training plans accordingly.
See...MAP is a tough one to nail down...isn't it?
I like FT testing as it is relatively an easy concept...but both tests and include LBP (Lactate Balance Point) would be the holy trinity of performance testing.
The test is MAP in itself regardless, and is only comparable to others under the same protocol. Adjust your zones and training plans accordingly.
See...MAP is a tough one to nail down...isn't it?
I like FT testing as it is relatively an easy concept...but both tests and include LBP (Lactate Balance Point) would be the holy trinity of performance testing.
The issue I have with FTP is motivation. How hard I am willing to push myself in trainning varies a fair bit.Spunout said:Pick a test protocol and stick to it.
The test is MAP in itself regardless, and is only comparable to others under the same protocol. Adjust your zones and training plans accordingly.
See...MAP is a tough one to nail down...isn't it?
I like FT testing as it is relatively an easy concept...but both tests and include LBP (Lactate Balance Point) would be the holy trinity of performance testing.
Spunout said:
1. Functional threshold power essentially equals the lactate balance point.
2. I'm not sure what would be gained by doing an incremental exercise test (sans VO2 or blood lactate measurements) if you already know somebody's functional threshold power. I've tried to combine the data from the two to quantify anaerobic work capacity (hence the reason my wife recently did that incremental exercise test), but the numbers don't really make sense (i.e., they appear to be protocol-dependent, when in theory they shouldn't be).
Similar threads
