Not according to Ric Stern, one of the author of the original MAP protocol (British Cycling). See https://wattmatters.blog/home/2008/01/graphical-representation-of-training.html?rq=FTP%3AMAP. Coggan’s Zone 5, 105%-120% of FTP is a training prescription to raise power at VO2 Max.
1 Like
I’ve seen a couple of different indicators for MAP. The ones that make sense for me are maximum 5-6 minute power, or the last minute of a ramp test with 3min steps, 25W per step.
I’ve seen some people call the final minute of the TR ramp test “MAP”, but for me there’s way too much anaerobic for the A in that acronym.
Again, you are confusing MAP, i.e. the highest power achieved during an incremental exercise test, with the power that elicits VO2max.
The former is normally significantly higher than the latter. If not, you haven’t fulfilled the leveling off criteria.
To try to avoid this sort of confusion, MAP is also often called Wmax (with the usual dot over the W, to signify a rate) or Pmax. However, MAP/Wmax/Pmax then can get confused with true maximal sprint power.
Damn sport scientists!
1 Like
Well, LT2 is approximately FTP so that’s part of the equation. Just so long as you have an accurate way to determine FTP! LT1 is harder to determine. It’s not a percentage of FTP. Or, rather, it is for you but that percent is likely to be different than everybody else.
Give this Faster podcast by FLO (Episode 13) a listen. Dr. Seiler goes through two different ways to determine LT1.
~20:00 they go through the lactate curve of one of the podcasters to determine power at LT1 and LT2
~24:00 they talk about using VO2max HR, resting HR, and HR reserve to approximate LT1
~20:00 the podcaster says, ‘hey, the LT1 you just told me from my lactate curve is way less than the LT1 I approximate using your VO2max method.’ There is a long pause. 
Then Dr. Seiler explains that LT1 as a percent of VO2max varies substantially from athlete to athlete.
And that’s the answer to your question. Does anyone know what my LT1 is as a percent of FTP (which, in TR context is a percent of MAP)? Answer: no. Nobody knows that. The gold standard is to figure it out from your lactate curve. Next best is Seiler’s VO2max HR reserve approach but that’s likely to overestimate.
Wmax - the maximum work rate, a bit different concept that’s been pegged to VO2 Max and is mix bag (protocol dependent). Quick search, Wmax ~ 95% VO2 max in https://sites.uni.edu/dolgener/Advanced_exercise_physiologyy/Electronic%20Articles/Cycle%20Ergometry.pdf
Pmax - the maximum power output for a very short period of time (1 second mean maximal power but generally taken to be at least one full revolution with both legs)
MAP - maximal aerobic power
Based on data from Coggan, an untrained cyclist’s 5 seconds mean maximal power is between 9.90w/kg to 11.80w/kg whereas 5 minute mean maximal power (used to estimate VO2 Max based on American College of Sports Medicine equation) is between 2.20w/kg to 2.96w/kg. For women it’s 8.42 w/kg to 10.03 w/kg and 1.87w/kg to 2.51w/kg. You are not equating MAP with Pmax?
Yes, as I mentioned the power you reach at the end of an incremental test is dependent upon the ramp rate.
Yes, as I mentioned some people mistake MAP for sprint power.
Neither address your point of confusion, though, which is that during an incremental exercise test, you keep going even after you reach VO2max. MAP is therefore a power that requires >100% (usually >110%) of VO2max. Your prior calculations assumed that MAP = 100% of VO2max, which is why they are wrong.
ETA: You are also misinterpreting the study that you cited. Nowhere does it demonstrate or claim that Wmax equates to 95% of VO2max. There is also the issue that the subjects were not cyclists, and thus incapable of achieving a true VO2max during cycle ergometery, but that’s a different problem.
You are confused regarding the value used to maximize with interval training to optimize VO2max adaptations, 90% of VO2 Max verse power at VO2 Max. MAP is upper limit to VO2max; that is, the maximum intensity (Power) that elicits VO2max.
Typo, 10% of true value for 95 out of every 100 test subjects.
1 Like
Does not the “elicits” simply mean that athlete is still using oxygen at the peak rate (vo2max), meaning that it could be 30 seconds or 1 minute or 5min max power as long as oxygen usage remains at vo2max level?
Yes but there’s a practical limit for which one can hold that power (how train one is) and the problem of isolating the primary contributor of the energy pathway (<10s PCr, 45s-150s non-aerobic glycolysis, and aerobic). The British Cycling MAP test protocol for elite men, non-elite men, & women take a stab on the estimation.
The disagreement here is what Coggan’s training levels represent. Specifically, Level 5, Maximal aerobic power, at average power between 106%-120% of % of average in a 60 minutes time trail (~FTP). The description for the workout is “[l]onger intervals (3-8 minute, with 2:30-5:00 recovery) is meant to raise VO2max.” No where did he state 120% of FTP equals power at VO2 Max. You can blame that confusion from “correlating” heart rate and RPE training prescriptions (no real measurement/association of the work/intensity to HR or PE).
But MAP isn’t “the maximum intensity (power) that elicits VO2max”. Rather, it is simply the power you reach at the end of an incremental (ramp) exercise test, regardless of whether VO2 is measured or not. Because of the contribution of anaerobic energy reserves, it ends up being a power that would require >100% of VO2max, if only you could provide it.
To look at it another way, you would reach VO2max after a minute or two at a power <100% of MAP, even if you ignore VO2 drift.
ETA: Here’s a study that illustrates my point: trained cyclists with a VO2max of 4.2-4.5 L/min, but a MAP (Wmax) of 390-420 W. Typically, to generate a power that high while relying entirely on aerobic energy production would require a VO2 of at least 5 L/min. The reason that these subjects were still able to achieve that high of a power using an incremental test protocol similar to that used by, say, Ric Stern or British Cycling is due to the anaerobic contribution, which leads to MAP being higher than the power required to elicit 100% of VO2max.
https://insights.ovid.com/crossref?an=00005768-200904000-00022
From the same paper: " It is also noteworthy that PR’s VO2 max at 18 years of age (when her training was minimal: i.e. less than 25–30 miles per week) was 72 mL · kg–1 · min–1; clearly, she was exceptionally talented. However, this athletic potential was only achieved following 10 further years of increasingly arduous training, underpinned throughout by scientific principles. PR’s weekly training volume has increased considerably over her career, and today she will perhaps cover between 120 and 160 miles a week when in full marathon training. However, one cornerstone of PR’s training philosophy is that she has never compromised training quality for quantity. Indeed, nowadays PR’s “steady” continuous running, which makes up a large fraction of her total weekly mileage, will typically be performed at a pace of between 5:15 and 5:45 min:sec per mile (3:20–3:40 min:sec per km). When she feels too tired to undertake a session at the appropriate intensity, she will rest rather than complete it ‘sub-optimally’. Another important element in PR’s training programme has been the inclusion of regular “tempo” running during which she will run at speeds close to her LTP (i.e. around 5:00 min:sec per mile or 3:08 min:sec per km) for extended periods. PR’s weekly training programme will also typically include 1–2 higher-intensity (i.e. requiring 95–100% VO2 max) interval or repetition sessions performed on the track, road or crosscountry, along with perhaps two weight training sessions."
Author in this paper describes LTP as the second LT threshold (not the first one as some might be using). My interpretation is that at Paula’s level, the capilarization, mitochondria number/size, etc, the type of gains that we might expect with low intensity work are pretty much maximized, therefore to progress further, she has to have a large portion of steady runs that are more intense and specific to her goals than for regular athlete who has not maximized those characteristics.
1 Like
That’s fantastic, thanks! So this is quite far from a “just run more” approach - a lot of tempo and higher intensity work, plus vo2max.
Yes, the question is how can one handle that much volume and intensity day in and day out. Obviously, her body adapted and was recovering significantly faster than any of us after 10 years of training to get to that point.
I am, however, always sceptical when looking at pros training. Especially of those with out of this world performances.
3 Likes
@mcneese.chad First off, thanks for putting together the spreadsheet. It’s been super helpful when trying to figure out what the heart rate and power zones should be.
I watched recently a youtube video by Dr. Seiler and this chart caught my eye.
Makes me wonder if the VT1 hear rate limit should be 80% of HRMax instead of 75% what you have used on the spreadsheet. While 5% difference does not sound much at first, it actually translates to 10+ BPM in my case which in reality is quite a lot.
That said, I understand that these percentages are just estimates and we all are unique. I’m just wondering why 75% instead of 80%.
1 Like
I always get a bit confused by the shifting targets - I specifically asked him this question on Twitter once (see below) and his advice was way below 80% for most riding:
So while you may want to use 78% or 80% for that magical dividing line, his view (at least as of 2019) was that was too high for everyday zone1 training.
3 Likes
The other formula he’s presented (which conceptually makes much more sense to me) can be found here: https://twitter.com/stephenseiler/status/1242422890496167936, which is 65% * (HRMax - HRRest) + HRRest:
That relationship depends on your resting HR. If you use % of Heart Rate Reserve (HRmax minus HRrest), then add back HRrest, that percentage will be close to %VO2max. For example 0.65*(180-60) = 78. Add back HRrest (78+60=138). 138 (138/180 =77%HRmax) approximates 65% VO2max.
I had also heard him say 65% of HR max in early interviews, but then I think he refined it later using that model above. He also seems to prioritize (1) actual lactate testing, (2) ventilatory threshold (“talk test”), and only then HR as the number 3 metric - just so much more individual variation.
Agreed. I think I set the dividing line somewhere there and get it calibrated by using the talk test.
@mike2 You could also just do what he does in practice with his daughter, and use the 5-zone Norwegian system (based on her lab results, of course, but HRR calculations get you close enough IMO). I’ve had a lot of success using something very similar these last (almost) two years. The 3-zone model was originally just a way to aggregate data from different sports into a common system for scientific publication. I have really only heard him recommend prescribing runs/rides using 3-zones for beginners or young athletes. And I’m not entirely sure that wasn’t revisionist on his part.
No matter, the 5-zone system (or something similar) gives you a tempo and endurance zone, which you will likely need if you want to improve on reduced hours.
Thinking that you will run or ride almost everything under one cut-off point (or cap) quickly becomes impractical, as he has acknowledged.
1 Like
I probably need to dig into this at some point. My info may well be outdated. I can’t swear to the source of any particular cell, but know I tried to extract the info from the 3 or so podcasts back in late 2018. I had to pick one or improvise since they sometimes offered more than one answer between casts.
For now, feel free to make your own copy and update as you see fit. I need to get some time to dig in, but am dealing with other stuff so it may be a while.
FWIW, and that is likely not much, I was here when you created those spreadsheets @mcneese.chad. The consensus by most was that you accurately captured what was communicated on those early FastTalk and Flo podcasts. How do I know? Because you would have been raked over the coals (sadly) had there been any inaccuracies. 
My point to @mike2 is that A) the thinking and messaging from Seiler has evolved and no longer subjected to the “FastTalk podcast filter” and B) you can now just look at how he implements his own ideas and make up you own mind as to how you want to incorporate.
It’s really just a variation in the old endurance plus tempo approach.
1 Like