Is the MAP (Ramp) Test a Valid Estimator of FTP?
Just recently I wrote a blog piece about how to FTP test. In the piece I discussed how to test, who is it for, how to set training zones, should you test short or long, and a variety of other points. However, within the article I also mentioned MAP testing.
What is MAP testing?
Simply, a MAP (maximal aerobic power) test, which is also known as a ramp test, or a max test or a VO2max test (if you concurrently measure expired respiratory gases) is a test which starts easy, and ramps up the power by a specific amount of wattage at a specific time point. It increases until the athlete can’t match the required power and usually takes about 10 to 20-minutes to complete excluding warm up and cool down. If you look at a graph of a MAP test, it looks like a steep incline, and to be honest it sort of feels like that. A never ending mountain, until it breaks you. And break you it will. It breaks everyone, whether you’re Chris Froome, Egan Bernal, a cat 1 racer, or someone starting out on their fitness expedition.
Testing with CycleCoach
If you come to the office here I’ll test you on my Tacx Neo rig, with your bike fitted to it, and an incremental protocol that I’ve built to run on Zwift and Trainer Road. Would you like the file (then skip to the end of this article)? Afterwards, we’ll go through exactly what it means, and how it fits in with your existing data. However, for the vast majority of people it’s too far to travel to the South East of England, and so I make the test file freely available.
Where is the endpoint of a MAP?
During the testing process, it starts really easy, and gets harder. Very hard. At some point, about three quarters of the way through the test, you’ll go through your FTP and the test will start biting. Not long after this it’ll feel like the Devil is sinking his teeth into your legs, while ripping your chest out and smacking you with a hammer. And, then you’ll pop. We then look at the best 60-secs power of the test (presuming you have followed the correct incremental process) and use these data as your MAP.
Zwift and Trainer Road.
The keen eyed among you will know that this test is also pre built into the these two training platforms. And they’ll automatically calculate your FTP based off of your MAP result. This gives you a way to build training sessions, and means that you have an easy to follow test that self-paces you, rather than having to drill it for 20-minutes (or 60-minutes). They use 75% of MAP as your FTP. However, this is where things start to go awry.
Is the MAP Test a Valid Estimator of FTP?
Simply, the answer to this is unreservedly a yes. MAP estimates FTP very well. After all, why wouldn’t it. By definition MAP is the maximal aerobic power (note, that even though this is what it is called, there is a small anaerobic contribution which significantly differs from person to person, and with the same person with differing levels of fitness).
Forum Chatter
On lots of forums I constantly see questions and statements such as:
”If you do the ramp test, is it close to your real FTP?”
”Has it ever been tested against an FTP test”
”It’s too far away from my real FTP to be useful”
Data
In the mid 1990s through to around 2000 I was doing my Sports Science degree, starting a PhD, writing up research, and starting a coaching business. I was involved in lots of VO2max tests as a student, both taking part, and helping out on a variety of athletes from recreational through to elite World Class riders (including Chris Boardman). Although the term ‘FTP’ hadn’t been invented at this point, I was interested in how hard athletes could ride for 1 hour (I was mainly interested and helping with the World Hour Record, and also interested in the critical power concept). I noted that riders could maintain about 70ish percent of their MAP for 1 hour. I then had some selected riders ride for various durations at maximal effort (for that duration) and put together a basic power duration curve. What did I note from the data? That within the category of people that raced their data was very similar and it only differed by small amounts. I saw that over 97% of the people I tested or whose data I had access too, was that their best ~1 hour power was always in the region of 72 - 77%.
So, Why are People Asking if it’s a Good Estimate?
This is really where both Zwift and Trainer Road have got the details slightly wrong. Although they both spoke to me, and I made it clear, I explicitly stated that someone’s FTP was NOT 75% of MAP, I said it would fall into the range of 72 - 77% for the vast majority. However, the software as it is wants or needs a definitive, specific answer and they plumped with 75%. Why 75%? As power meters became commercially available a ‘Wattage’ group on Topica.Com (since moved to Google) started. I would often chip in and say such things as 1 hour power was in the region of 72 to 77%. All was good. One day, I simply couldn’t be bothered to write 72 to 77% multiple times in an email and through laziness I wrote 75%. Others did this too… And, bingo, it stuck as 75%!
Does a Few Percent Matter?
Let’s say your MAP is 350W. 75% of that is 262.5 W. If that’s what Zwift and Trainer Road use then your power you have to ride at could well be wrong. 72% of 350W is 252W and 77% is 269.5W. Last year my best MAP was 360W and my FTP was 260W. That’s a fraction over 72%. At 75% that’s 270W and that was my best 20-min power. They were all tested within a few weeks of each other. Trying to use 270W as my FTP just results in me blowing up mid-session and not being able to complete sessions. Just 10W and it’s too much for me…
Additionally…
Both Zwift and Trainer Road use the incorrect ramp rates and protocols for testing MAP. I suggested that non-elite males use a 25W/min ramp and elite males use 20W/min. All females use a 15W/min. This is what British Cycling used based on my recommendation. Zwift, I believe uses 20W/min for all, and Trainer Road use about 13W/min. Finally, I’ve always suggested using as small a increment as possible — so 5W every 12-secs for non-elite males, and 5W every 20-secs for females. All of these points will result in your FTP being skewed.
How to Use the Data?
I strongly suggest that for anyone who races, that they complete both a 20-minute TT test (or a 60ish-minute one) and a MAP test. Seeing where you lay on the % scale can provide valuable insight into what sort of training may be required for you (albeit this is only a beginning, and other factors can come into play). If you just want to do a MAP test, I’d almost certainly recommend you do a 20-minute test as well, but if you really don’t want to do the TT test and can’t be convinced to do so, then I’d suggest using 72% for your FTP. It’s better to underestimate it (although of course it could still be too high, or just correct) and have you complete the sessions based off of it.
Zwift and Trainer Road
Lest anyone thinks I’m ragging on Zwift or Trainer Road, then you’re wrong! I use both platforms for my training and enjoy them. They just don’t have MAP protocol correct! However, feel free to contact me here and get a correct copy of the test!
Anymore About MAP Testing?
For sure, here’s an article I wrote for Cyclingnews.com in about 2001.
If you’d like to book in for a MAP test, and chat about how to amend your training based on the results then use this link.
If you’d like to download a Zwift file created by CycleCoach then click here.