MAP vs. CP testing

[culpbenjaminc]

I'm starting to do my testing to establish my power zones, and have found 2 different ways to do it. The first is a ramp test to determine the maximal aerobic power.(essentially the highest power achieved during the test?) Then I would calculate the zones off of percentages of that.

The second option is doing critical power tests where I do TTs of 12seconds, 1 min, 5 min, 10 min, etc. and generate a power curve for the given TTs.

My assumption is that the CP testing is a bit more descriptive, since it can show deficiencies in different time efforts (not base them on calculations), while the ramp test is a better way to determine VO2max. Which one should I do for a monthly test, and focus on my training with?

 

[ric_stern/RST]

I'm starting to do my testing to establish my power zones, and have found 2 different ways to do it. The first is a ramp test to determine the maximal aerobic power.(essentially the highest power achieved during the test?) Then I would calculate the zones off of percentages of that.

The second option is doing critical power tests where I do TTs of 12seconds, 1 min, 5 min, 10 min, etc. and generate a power curve for the given TTs.

My assumption is that the CP testing is a bit more descriptive, since it can show deficiencies in different time efforts (not base them on calculations), while the ramp test is a better way to determine VO2max. Which one should I do for a monthly test, and focus on my training with?

I recommend using the MAP test (see http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=powerstern) which is very protocol dependent (hence the link, in case there is another test you've seen). I find this an excellent way of setting training zones.

If you're going to use critical power testing there's no real need to do a huge variety of tests, 2 or 3 tests (different durations) would be fine. However, it tends to be that CP testing over estimates the power you can generate for ~1-hr.

What you focus your training on will be dependent upon your goals and be personal to you. I find that the power i can generate at MAP is big determinant of my performance in RRs, as we often ride hills of 2 to 10mins at efforts around MAP to stay in the lead group (assuming that your power to mass ratio is high enough).

ric

 

[culpbenjaminc]

While the MAP test has a high correlation to the journal articles I have given me several questions... (I decided to do a pubmed search this morning )

1. In the articles comparing CP and MAP, they are generating their CP curve with time values of 2 to 16 minutes- then correlating this out to 1 hour. How this compares to practical life- or applies to training software like cyclingpeaks that will generate the CP plots from actual data, I don't know. There is however a high correlation for the curves of CP to VO2 max in the 2 to 15 minute trend- (Hill, 2002) that makes me think problem might just be a lack of predictive value at longer time periods (ie. LT power)

2. Upon reading more about the critical power theory, I do have some problems with it. 1) Power isn't infinite 2) and fatigue isn't accounted for. I like the CP idea however because it is so intuitive on a functional level- and perhaps adding in longer data points would increase the correlation.


I guess ultimately, I'll end up doing both tests, and compare the training zones generated to see how different they are. Now my next task is to see how calculations from the two tests affect the training methods- don't know if either really makes a functional difference once the longer CP times are generated.

PS- This is all coming from a medical student/cyclist who has a cumulative total of 2 months working in an exercise physiology lab- so take Ric's advise a bit (Like a lot) more seriously than mine!

Ben Culp
UAMS

 

[rmur17]

While the MAP test has a high correlation to the journal articles I have given me several questions... (I decided to do a pubmed search this morning )

1. In the articles comparing CP and MAP, they are generating their CP curve with time values of 2 to 16 minutes- then correlating this out to 1 hour. How this compares to practical life- or applies to training software like cyclingpeaks that will generate the CP plots from actual data, I don't know. There is however a high correlation for the curves of CP to VO2 max in the 2 to 15 minute trend- (Hill, 2002) that makes me think problem might just be a lack of predictive value at longer time periods (ie. LT power)

2. Upon reading more about the critical power theory, I do have some problems with it. 1) Power isn't infinite 2) and fatigue isn't accounted for. I like the CP idea however because it is so intuitive on a functional level- and perhaps adding in longer data points would increase the correlation.


I guess ultimately, I'll end up doing both tests, and compare the training zones generated to see how different they are. Now my next task is to see how calculations from the two tests affect the training methods- don't know if either really makes a functional difference once the longer CP times are generated.

PS- This is all coming from a medical student/cyclist who has a cumulative total of 2 months working in an exercise physiology lab- so take Ric's advise a bit (Like a lot) more seriously than mine!

Ben Culp
UAMS

here's another alternative -based on a simple 40k TT or equivalently hard effort .... have a look at the Levels first perhaps ...

http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411.html

 

[beerco]

I'm starting to do my testing to establish my power zones, and have found 2 different ways to do it.

There's yet another way. Do long intervals like the ever popular 2x20 and increase the power by 5 to 10w per session (I do them every other day when I'm out of touch with my threshold power) until you can't finish the second 20 minutes. Subtract 10w and you've got your hour power figure.

I like this method of setting zones because you're training while you're testing.

 

[grom]

beerco thats a great alias

what do you do in the off season these 2x20's x3days=120 minutes that's a lot of quality work for january

There's yet another way. Do long intervals like the ever popular 2x20 and increase the power by 5 to 10w per session (I do them every other day when I'm out of touch with my threshold power) until you can't finish the second 20 minutes. Subtract 10w and you've got your hour power figure.

I like this method of setting zones because you're training while you're testing.

 

[beerco]

beerco thats a great alias

what do you do in the off season these 2x20's x3days=120 minutes that's a lot of quality work for january

Actually, I only do 2x20's twice a week this time of year. (sometimes three but not yet this year).

What I meant was that if I don't know my threshold power, I'll start low and go every other day until I crack. I can usually guess so that it happens within 3 sessions.

 

[skyheartscraper]

that is totally cool..check this site its pretty cool.