physiologists: convert MVO2 to FTP and W/Kg

[momotaro]

I posted this in another thread, but I thought I might make a new post to get better traffic to my questions.

knowns:

MVO2= 5.8 L/min (Cant remember the protocol, but it was ramped, and I think peak power was in the 520 Watt range IIRC).
mass = 71kg
stepped test protocol: 200 watts start adding 30 watts every 3 minutes. Completed 470 Watt stage, partially completed 500 Watt stage

Can somebody estimate FTP and W/kg?

 

[acoggan]

I posted this in another thread, but I thought I might make a new post to get better traffic to my questions.

knowns:

MVO2= 5.8 L/min (Cant remember the protocol, but it was ramped, and I think peak power was in the 520 Watt range IIRC).
mass = 71kg
stepped test protocol: 200 watts start adding 30 watts every 3 minutes. Completed 470 Watt stage, partially completed 500 Watt stage

Can somebody estimate FTP and W/kg?

Estimate? Sure...but not very accurately, given the data available.

Anyway, I'd guess that your FTP is somewhere around 330-360 W, which would be 4.6-5.1 W/kg.

 

[the big ring]

I posted this in another thread, but I thought I might make a new post to get better traffic to my questions.

knowns:

MVO2= 5.8 L/min (Cant remember the protocol, but it was ramped, and I think peak power was in the 520 Watt range IIRC).
mass = 71kg
stepped test protocol: 200 watts start adding 30 watts every 3 minutes. Completed 470 Watt stage, partially completed 500 Watt stage

Can somebody estimate FTP and W/kg?

Not a calculation, but from Ed Coyle's paper, Lance Armstrong, in November 1999 (ie 4 months after winning his first Tour de France) was 79.7kg and had a VO2 max of 5.7 l/min.

If you have the graph plotting VO2 vs watts, you could look at what power you were putting out at 5l/min. Lance was doing 404W.

It's not evidence of much but gives you an indication of what he had going on at the time.

Your relative VO2max of 81ml/m/kg is very healthy. You have a lot of potential.

In 1993, Lance's VO2 max was 6.1l/min, but at 75kg, you and he had the same relative VO2max of 81ml/m/kg. He won the world championships road race that year.

There has been some rumours that Lance doped since a 15 year old triathlete. If your figures are clean, you're doing very well.

Read more about Lance in Ed's study here: http://jap.physiology.org/content/98/6/2191.long

 

[acoggan]

Not a calculation, but from Ed Coyle's paper, Lance Armstrong, in November 1999 (ie 4 months after winning his first Tour de France) was 79.7kg and had a VO2 max of 5.7 l/min.

If you have the graph plotting VO2 vs watts, you could look at what power you were putting out at 5l/min. Lance was doing 404W.

It's not evidence of much but gives you an indication of what he had going on at the time.

Why would you *** u me that momotaro's VO2 at FTP is 5 L/min?

BTW, Armstrong's economy was never anything exceptional. The point of Coyle's paper was that it seemingly improved over time, going from a bit below average to a bit above average.

 

[the big ring]

Why would you *** u me that momotaro's VO2 at FTP is 5 L/min?

BTW, Armstrong's economy was never anything exceptional. The point of Coyle's paper was that it seemingly improved over time, going from a bit below average to a bit above average.

tsk tsk tsk. Was my wording too imprecise? Nowhere did I mention FTP. In fact, you can see my post is edited, so you will have to take my word for it, but suffice to say your quote of my post doesn't mention FTP anywhere, so it's probably true.

You'll also see I mentioned nothing, that's right, absolutely NOTHING about economy.

So I wonder what you are replying to. hmmmm....

Back to that 5l/min business. Are you perhaps implying that FTP for Armstrong was 5l/min? And hence his power at FTP was 404W?

Have you actually seen the study? Here's the graph I am looking at:

Now, I don't have a PhD, but it looks to me like Lance's lactate threshold kicks in at somewhere around 4.02 - 4.7l/min.

It's Coyle who lists Lance's power at 5l/min VO2. Why is he doing that? If Lance's lactate threshold O2 in January 1993 is 4.52l/min (out of a max of 5.82l/min), what's the point of showing his power at O2 uptake of 5l/min? And if his FTP was 5l/min, how amazing that it stayed exactly the same for 8 years.



I am sure you will whip up a plausible explanation. I look forward to reading it.

Regardless, I offered and again offer no explanation or interpretation of VO2max results other than a direct comparison to Lance Armstrong, and will reiterate to momotaro that you have exemplary potential and should definitely seek out a coach If you are in Australia, hit me up, I am happy to help and may even be able to lend you a power meter.

 

[acoggan]

Nowhere did I mention FTP.

The OP wanted to know their FTP. If you weren't alluding to FTP, then your reply is a complete non-sequitor.

You'll also see I mentioned nothing, that's right, absolutely NOTHING about economy.

In fact, you did: cycling economy = power/VO2...as in 404 W @ a VO2 of 5 L/min.

It's Coyle who lists Lance's power at 5l/min VO2. Why is he doing that? If Lance's lactate threshold O2 in 1993 is 4.52l/min, what's the point of showing his power at O2 uptake of 5l/min?

As described in the paper, Ed did so to illustrate the practical implications of Armstrong's apparent improvement in cycling efficiency. He picked a VO2 of 5 L/min because that was his best estimate of Armstrong's LT* when race-fit.

*Note that LT and FTP are not equal, with the latter being 10-15% higher than the former (at least the way Ed defines LT).

 

[momotaro]

These were my number more than 15 years ago. I was just curious for comparison sake, as performance is now quoted in Watt/kg and FTP. power meters were not in wide spread use in my era all I had was my speedo, HRM and the lab data.

Andy, thanks for the reply. I think your number would be pretty close. Would these estimates correlate with 47-48km/hr TT average on a 40km course. Average to good position with 15 year old equipment?

BTW: Those Armstrong numbers are not representative of his performance in the tour. I would guess he was close to 15% higher at the very least during the tour. This is in agreement with the fact that he was not likely on the program in November, and that he was in a low point in terms of fitness. IIRC, that particular study received a lot of criticism regarding poor design.

 

[acoggan]

Andy, thanks for the reply.

You're welcome.

I think your number would be pretty close.

Relative to body mass, yes, but I am/have always been a few kilos lighter than you.

Would these estimates correlate with 47-48km/hr TT average on a 40km course. Average to good position with 15 year old equipment?

Roughly, yeah, although you'd have to be pretty "aerodynamically gifted".

 

[momotaro]

There is no point pouring over the data from Coyle's paper. The data are not reliable. See:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/09/coyle-and-armstrong-research-errors.html

I have not read the whole paper in a while, but I remember first reading it and having all sorts of questions about the results. I had the chance to ask Coyle about efficiency and cadence very briefly in 2010 when he was presenting in Vancouver. Basically, I did not understand how/why armstrong was riding such high cadence when previous research (admittedly very old), indicated that economy was maximized at much lower cadence. He kinda brushed me off....

thanks for the replies though.....

 

[acoggan]

There is no point pouring over the data from Coyle's paper. The data are not reliable. See:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/09/coyle-and-armstrong-research-errors.html

There are more errors in that analysis than Coyle ever made.

 

[acoggan]

BTW, I was reminded of the controversial Coyle paper earlier today when a link to this paper showed up in my facebook feed:

https://www.thieme-connect.com/ejournals/abstract/10.1055/s-0032-1304640

Yet more evidence that despite the limitations of Coyle's paper, it appears he was right in concluding that efficiency improves with endurance exercise training, something that Ashenden apparently considers/considered impossible...

 

[momotaro]

Andy, how does the above link estimate gross efficiency.

Not an expert in the area, but I don't think you can really improve efficiency that much (depending on how you define it).

 

[acoggan]

Andy, how does the above link estimate gross efficiency.

Same as every other study: energy out/energy in x 100%, with "energy out" being measured using an ergometer and "energy in" being measured via indirect calorimetry.

Not an expert in the area, but I don't think you can really improve efficiency that much (depending on how you define it).

Actually, at least a half-dozen longitudinal studies have now demonstrated comparable improvements in gross efficiency with endurance training. (You can also acutely improve gross efficiency by ingesting nitrate, but that's a different story...or maybe not. )

 

[the big ring]

Same as every other study: energy out/energy in x 100%, with "energy out" being measured using an ergometer and "energy in" being measured via indirect calorimetry.



Actually, at least a half-dozen longitudinal studies have now demonstrated comparable improvements in gross efficiency with endurance training. (You can also acutely improve gross efficiency by ingesting nitrate, but that's a different story...or maybe not. )

I took it to the original thread for discussion.