I believe 3 minutes was for running and reason behind the 2/3 minute step was something about stabilizing the heart rate. This graph should look familiar.
Taken from Performing a Lactate Threshold Test
Ok, you can go back to 1922 and read about “ramp” tests (graded exercise tests) in running. That paper above was trying to validate (indirect) MAP on the cycling erg with (direct) MAP on the treadmill. They could have easily said MAP. for cycling and DMAP for treadmill. Whatever.
Keep in mind that training VO2max and training MAP are not the same thing. If you want to train a higher power, train to sustain higher power for X minutes. If you’re looking to improve maximal oxygen uptake, then power is a secondary metric and you’re really looking to push HR and breathing rate. You wouldn’t conduct 4x5 for VO2max and 4x5 for 5min power improvement the same way. (In the past, this has sparked quite a debate on here with a formerly prominent forum member.)
Since some folks on this thread have invoked Steve Neal’s ideas (and why wouldn’t you, he’s Canadian and this is MAP after all), I’ll just throw one out there that is related to this comment. Steve has often said that one of his favorite things to do is have riders do a bunch of long tempo training (tempo in this context is LT1 - ~.85 IF, depending on rider’s balance point) and then have them see MAP go up. “But you didn’t do any high intensity, did you? How 'bout that”…in a “so what did we learn today, kids” kind of way. It’s cool when it happens.
LOL I just spent two years using power and spent ~80% of the time pushing down (HR & breathing rate) and the end result is I’m now nearly back to my highest absolute VO2max (ml/min) from 2017
This is me - just finished 3 months of ONLY z2 and z3 work and saw 5m power go up by 30w (11%) and 20m power by 10w… Couldn’t believe the test results!
A passing car with open window and a barking dog will make my legs reflexively push out 600+ watts… Without lab testing I figured the ‘sweet spot / z5 heavy’ approach wasn’t working as I always seemed to generate huge amounts of lactate. With a goal of increasing lactate consumption in my legs, the last two years I’ve been pushing power down and that has pushed MAP up. My best modeled (WKO) absolute vo2max was 3% higher in 2017, but I haven’t done any recent long max efforts (which will push it up higher). Using TR SS/z5 heavy approach my absolute vo2 dropped 9%.
With a coach helping me figure it out, my new favorite is dropping cadence on upper endurance and lower tempo rides. That plus some high cadence speed work and a sprinkle of above threshold work. The low cadence at upper z2 / lower z3 worked for me the first 6 months of cycling in 2016, but I was clueless and didn’t realize it. Worked again in 2017, but again I was clueless.
Lots of ways to skin the cat, especially improving VO2max. Probably the most effective way to make that movement over time is to ride lots more. Then again, if time weren’t a constraint… I’d only argue that if you’re doing a focused block of training, you can focus on pushing more power or you can focus on physiological changes and potentially see different outcomes. Training MAP probably improves VO2max, and training VO2max probably improves MAP, too.
As that formerly prominent poster here used to say, “just focus on 5 minute power!”… for most of us, that’s plenty good enough… but there are other ways too!
Keegan Swenson on a recent podcast said if he were advising someone on how to train their progression levels, he’d aim for 37 in Tempo, and 1 in everything else for pretty much this same reason.
yeah I was just teasing because like a coin operated sales person (LOL I’m in sales), your comment focused on your current focus (a vo2max block). Of course that isn’t sustainable long term, hence my comment.
What do you mean? I can do 4x6min intervals until my eyeballs bleed for MONTHS on end. Just watch me.
But yes, I’m hyperfocused on short-term VO2max movement ATM… that said, I entered my 2021 season at WKO estimated Vo2max of 52, peaked at 65, and then entered this season at 57, currently sitting at 61. That coincided with an increase in overall volume the last 18 months or so, specifically adding more time in Z2 both in long rides and during interval sessions. Coincidence? I don’t think so.
Just wait till I get more time leaving my full-time job here next week.
my weight fluctuates so I use absolute modeled VO2max… 4245 ml/min high in 2017 (a lot of max efforts) and current 4113 ml/min without any 180 day max efforts above 11 minutes. Roughly the same amount of volume, but a LOT more intensity in 2017 (~20 minute morning commutes at +/- threshold). With weight factored in, both Garmin and WKO have me at 45 ml/min/kg which at my age is just inside excellent (top 15%).
my WKO estimates fluctuate a lot, but I’m not maintaining the model with max efforts throughout the year. Less fluctuation for me on Garmin, and it helps to understand it uses a different estimation technique (HRV and sub-maximal power-to-HR).
Garmin and WKO start aligning when I start feeding WKO enough max or near max efforts.
Is there a point in the Power Curve that correlates the most with VO2max?..4, 5, 6 min?..A 25% swing in the v02max number seems like it is an artifact of the estimation, not a real phenomena.
Question. So if I take a conservative estimate of my 5min power and for the sake of this question assume I can plug that number into the above equation, then 75% of that number makes my VT1 world tour pro at 275W.
What am I misunderstanding? I’m world tour slow, not world tour pro
Yep, that 75% of VO2max looks strange to me too.
Best 1 min of ramp test ±= 5min max power ±= VO2max
ftp = 75% of best 1 min of ramp test
VT1 = 75% VO2max
So VT1 = ftp
and the end result is I’m now nearly back to my highest absolute VO2max (ml/min) from 2017 
I’d only argue that if you’re doing a focused block of training, you can focus on pushing more power or you can focus on physiological changes and potentially see different outcomes. Training MAP probably improves VO2max, and training VO2max probably improves MAP, too.
