VO2 Max and FTP power

[Steeplechase]

Where does VO2 Max set an upper limit on FTP power for clean riders?

Is there a way to use the VO2 max results to set an upper limit as to what a rider's max FTP power could be?

Could these metrics be used to detect probably cause of doping?

I'm not advocating power testing for riders ala Lemond's idea to detect doping.

Discuss.

My thoughts: It depends more on absolute Vo2 for wattage numbers, relative Vo2 for watt/kg numbers.

Bradly Wiggins: 71-72kg at 410 watts FTP powertap (from Tour 09 prologue) VO2 max?

Friend: 77kg at 400 watts FTP powertap. Vo2 max?

Friend: 77kg at 420 watts FTP powertap. Vo2 max 88ml/kg.

 

[BigBoat]

Where does VO2 Max set an upper limit on FTP power for clean riders?

Is there a way to use the VO2 max results to set an upper limit as to what a rider's max FTP power could be?

Could these metrics be used to detect probably cause of doping?

I'm not advocating power testing for riders ala Lemond's idea to detect doping.

Discuss.

My thoughts: It depends more on absolute Vo2 for wattage numbers, relative Vo2 for watt/kg numbers.

Bradly Wiggins: 71-72kg at 410 watts FTP powertap (from Tour 09 prologue) VO2 max?

Friend: 77kg at 400 watts FTP powertap. Vo2 max?

Friend: 77kg at 420 watts FTP powertap. Vo2 max 88ml/kg.

You would need a freaky V02 max of like 86-90 to get to 420 FTP at 172 pounds... Lemond was a talented freak with an FTP about 390 at 148-150. His V02 max was like 93!

You could say all the dudes in the TDF at 5.9 watt per kilo and over have V02 maxes over 95 and some close to 100. Mayby over that for Contadoper!

There's a rough formula over on the cycling-forums.

 

[Steeplechase]

The 77kg and 420 watts FTP is for real, confirmed data on several different power meters all through season, not just one time. 88ml/kg is huge considering it was tested before peaking. Possibly 1-2% higher at peak, 89-90.

But wouldn't a VO2 Max of 88 for a 67kg rider yield a LOWER FTP power than the same Vo2 Max for a 77kg rider? 10 kg changes FTP from a very good 5.5 watts/kg at 77kg to an unreal 6.3 watts/kg for the 67kg rider! Huge difference!

So is it safe to say that ABSOLUTE Vo2 Max sets a bound on FTP power? Or is it more accurate to make a generalization that Vo2 Max ~ watts/kg at FTP.

Obviously we are trying to set a BOUNDARY of watts/kg numbers that are are able to be achieved with a given Vo2 Max. Correct training of Lactate Threshold over many years will bring FTP to a genetic maximum after a certain amount of time (6-8 years?) somewhere within this boundary. Going ABOVE this boundary would indicate very probable cause of doping.

Anyone have more data points?

 

[DarkWing]

The 77kg and 420 watts FTP is for real, confirmed data on several different power meters all through season, not just one time. 88ml/kg is huge considering it was tested before peaking. Possibly 1-2% higher at peak, 89-90.

But wouldn't a VO2 Max of 88 for a 67kg rider yield a LOWER FTP power than the same Vo2 Max for a 77kg rider? 10 kg changes FTP from a very good 5.5 watts/kg at 77kg to an unreal 6.3 watts/kg for the 67kg rider! Huge difference!

So is it safe to say that ABSOLUTE Vo2 Max sets a bound on FTP power? Or is it more accurate to make a generalization that Vo2 Max ~ watts/kg at FTP.

Obviously we are trying to set a BOUNDARY of watts/kg numbers that are are able to be achieved with a given Vo2 Max. Correct training of Lactate Threshold over many years will bring FTP to a genetic maximum after a certain amount of time (6-8 years?) somewhere within this boundary. Going ABOVE this boundary would indicate very probable cause of doping.

Anyone have more data points?

Absolute VO2 sets the ftp max. and VO2Max is more of a performance indicator.
I'd rather be 80kg's and have 6 w/kg than 60kg and have 6 w/kg - I would smash the 60kg guy in every TT.
the 80 kg guy have a higher VO2 than the 60kg guy. But they can have the same VO2Max


Is the 420 his 20 minute power or is it his 60 minute power? If it's his 60 minute power I wouldn't trust he was a clean rider.

 

[Steeplechase]

420 watts is FTP on SRM. Again this will be a bit lower for a PT, 405-410 watts. 20 min power is 460 watts. Clean. Really truly. I'm not just another bull****ting internet forum poster. These things are possible. Clean. Yes altitude training and lots of FTP work are needed, as well as an extremely gifted athlete.

These are the types of performances that I want people to know...they CAN be achieved. They CAN be real. Yes you need a huge Vo2 max and tons of training. If you have this type of engine, you win pro TT's.

Any other data points out there?

 

[DarkWing]

420 watts is FTP on SRM. Again this will be a bit lower for a PT, 405-410 watts. 20 min power is 460 watts. Clean. Really truly. I'm not just another bull****ting internet forum poster. These things are possible. Clean. Yes altitude training and lots of FTP work are needed, as well as an extremely gifted athlete.

These are the types of performances that I want people to know...they CAN be achieved. They CAN be real. Yes you need a huge Vo2 max and tons of training. If you have this type of engine, you win pro TT's.

Any other data points out there?

Unless that person is yourself, you really have no way of knowing...

460 seems high for a 20 minute, if his FTP is 420.
460 is about 110% of his FTP.

 

[Steeplechase]

Not everyone can hold 95% of 20 min power. It's a guideline. In my experience if one has a high AWC a recovered 20min effort can be 108-110% higher than FTP. If that rider has low AWC and does a "blowout" effort 5-10 minutes before starting the 20 min test the effect of AWC on 20 minute power is minimized.

And I wasn't ruling out that person being myself.

My main argument is...a Vo2 Max of 88-89 can be very real. And for a bigger rider 77kg this equates to a high FTP of 420 watts. For a rider of say 68kg, this would be only 380-390 watts.

I obviously hold no authority on this forum. And there is no reason to blindly believe in a pro rider in the Tour. But I want to help show that performances of Team Garmin-Slipstream and Columbia-HTC are POSSIBLE, clean, in the first and second week of the Tour. FTP will naturally decrease by the 3rd week of the Tour for any clean rider due to lower RBC and HCT. By as much as 30-40 watts.

Also, for a lot of these mountain top finishes where altitude is >2000m, power will be lower. Altitude ALWAYS lowers FTP watts. Taking all this into factor, a rider with an FTP of 420 watts at sea level and recovered may only be able to hold 360 watts or less for a 45 minute climb at altitude in the 2nd or 3rd week of the Tour.

 

[131313]

Not everyone can hold 95% of 20 min power. It's a guideline. In my experience if one has a high AWC a recovered 20min effort can be 108-110% higher than FTP. If that rider has low AWC and does a "blowout" effort 5-10 minutes before starting the 20 min test the effect of AWC on 20 minute power is minimized. .

truth is there are a lot of people who's 20MP is more than 10% higher than their FTP.

My main argument is...a Vo2 Max of 88-89 can be very real. And for a bigger rider 77kg this equates to a high FTP of 420 watts. For a rider of say 68kg, this would be only 380-390 watts.

without (accurately) testing the rider's efficiency on a metabolic cart, there's no way to tell vo2max from power output. It's a pretty big part of the equation. One could approximate, but it would be an approximation within about 15-20%.

Also, for a lot of these mountain top finishes where altitude is >2000m, power will be lower. Altitude ALWAYS lowers FTP watts. Taking all this into factor, a rider with an FTP of 420 watts at sea level and recovered may only be able to hold 360 watts or less for a 45 minute climb at altitude in the 2nd or 3rd week of the Tour.

That's certainly a good point, though the degree of loss at altitude is pretty individual. You really can't ascribe a set percentage to a particular rider's FTP and say (his sea level FTP is actuall 'X') based on a performance at altitude. (I realize you aren't suggesting this, I'm just pointing it out).

As far as the other comments on this thread, there are several that are ridiculous. I've seen a 70kg rider with FTP's of 410 and 20MP of 470, clean. In terms of w/kg I'm not far from either of those and I'm a US 'part-time pro' hack. I expect a guy like Hayden Rousten is putting up much higher raw numbers given that he's a giant.

 

[Steeplechase]

without (accurately) testing the rider's efficiency on a metabolic cart, there's no way to tell vo2max from power output. It's a pretty big part of the equation. One could approximate, but it would be an approximation within about 15-20%.

Hmmm. I'm convinced we can get closer than 15-20%. Metabolic efficiency does not vary much. I'd wager 3-5%. Anyone have a reference for how much metabolic efficiency varies among elite cyclists?

And thank for for validating there are CLEAN riders with 5.2-5.7 watts/kg FTP out there. Yes. It really happens. From this forum you'd think its not EVER possible without doping. Not true, at all.

 

[BroDeal]

I obviously hold no authority on this forum.

Well, you are doing a pretty good job of building that with these posts. They are a lot more interesting than the wild bullsh!t that BigBoat continually posts.

 

[BroDeal]

And thank for for validating there are CLEAN riders with 5.2-5.7 watts/kg FTP out there. Yes. It really happens. From this forum you'd think its not EVER possible without doping. Not true, at all.

Let me ask this: In your estimation what is the highest watts/kg FTP that is possible clean? Or maybe better, what value would set off your BS detector?

 

[elapid]

Anyone have a reference for how much metabolic efficiency varies among elite cyclists?.

Efficiency varies from 20-25% according to both researchers and PowerTap literature. While 5% may sound like a lot, there is actually not much difference in efficiency between novice and elite cyclists and it is not something that is easy to improve either. In reference 1 below, a significant increase in efficiency was seen throughout the season: 19.6% to 20.6%! More interesting in reference 2, there was an inverse relationship between efficiency and VO2 max in professional cyclists, suggesting that efficiency compensated for a relatively low VO2 max in professional cyclists.

REFERENCE 1
Hopker J, Coleman D, Passfield L. Changes in cycling efficiency during a competitive season. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009 Apr;41(4):912-9.
PURPOSE: To monitor training-related changes in gross efficiency (GE) over the course of a competitive cycling season. METHODS: Fourteen trained cyclists (mean +/- SD: 34 + 8 yr, 74.3 +/- 7.4 kg, Wmax = 406 +/- 43 W, V O2max = 59.5 +/- 3.8 mL x kg x min) with at least 3 yr competitive experience completed five laboratory tests during a competitive cycling season. The tests measured lactate threshold (LT), onset of blood lactate accumulation (OBLA), maximal oxygen uptake (V O2max), maximal minute power (Wmax), and GE. The data were analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA and Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient. RESULTS: GE changed significantly over the course of the competitive cycling season (P < 0.05), increasing over the precompetition phase of the season (19.6% vs 20.6%; P < 0.05). GE was maintained during the main competitive phase of the season (20.6% vs 20.3%; P > 0.05) and then decreased during the postcompetitive phase to 19.4% (P < 0.05). The precompetition changes in GE were related to the total time spent training and the time spent above OBLA intensity (r = 0.84 and 0.80, respectively). Riders who spent the most time training between LT and OBLA intensities (r = 0.87; P < 0.05) were better able to maintain GE. A significant inverse relationship was also identified between the changes in GE and the percentage change in training below LT over the competitive phase of the season. CONCLUSION: GE changes over the course of a competitive cycling season and is related to the volume and intensity of training conducted.

REFERENCE 2
Lucía A, Hoyos J, Pérez M, Santalla A, Chicharro JL. Inverse relationship between VO2max and economy/efficiency in world-class cyclists. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002 Dec;34(12):2079-84
PURPOSE: To determine the relationship that exists between VO2max and cycling economy/efficiency during intense, submaximal exercise in world-class road professional cyclists. METHODS Each of 11 male cyclists (26+/-1 yr (mean +/- SEM); VO2max: 72.0 +/- 1.8 mL x kg(-1) x min(-1)) performed: 1) a ramp test for O2max determination and 2) a constant-load test of 20-min duration at the power output eliciting 80% of subjects' VO2max during the previous ramp test (mean power output of 385 +/- 7 W). Cycling economy (CE) and gross mechanical efficiency (GE) were calculated during the constant-load tests. RESULTS: CE and GE averaged 85.2 +/- 2.3 W x L(-1) x min(-1) and 24.5 +/- 0.7%, respectively. An inverse, significant correlation was found between 1) VO2max (mL x kg(-0.32) x min(-1)) and both CE (r = -0.71; P = 0.01) and GE (-0.72; P = 0.01), and 2) VO2max (mL x kg(-1) x min(-1)) and both CE (r = -0.65; P = 0.03) and GE (-0.64; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: A high CE/GE seems to compensate for a relatively low VO2max in professional cyclists.

 

[131313]

Hmmm. I'm convinced we can get closer than 15-20%. Metabolic efficiency does not vary much. I'd wager 3-5%. Anyone have a reference for how much metabolic efficiency varies among elite cyclists?

The scientific literature which examines vo2 calculations from power output shows +/- 7-10%. I'd agree that most people fall into +/- 5%.

Remember a 3-4% difference in efficiency (I belive that's what Lucia paper showed going from memory) is a much bigger difference that a 3-4% difference in power output, which is why the fomulas for calculating vo2 from cycling power output aren't more accurate.

 

[Steeplechase]

Above 6 watts/kg at true FTP would be very suspicious in my opinion. That would mean a 75kg rider showing an FTP of 450 watts, or a lighter weight 65kg rider showing an FTP of 390 watts. That would mean a significantly higher Vo2 max than 88...we're getting into the Lemond region here of a true genetic freak at 92-93ml/kg and a possible CLEAN TDF winner. Keep in mind...it is VERY possible that there is another rider of similar ability in the peloton today. I'm hoping a rider such as Tony Martin is in this category.

Don't get me wrong...6 watts/kg is doable for 20 minutes, even 30+ for a lightweight rider. But longer than that, it should send up a red flag.

Also it needs to be noted--A WATT IS NOT A WATT. It varies SIGNIFICANTLY depending on what tool one uses to measure power. A properly calibrated SRM Professional vs. a Powertap -- SRM will read 1.5-3% higher than the Powertap. Doesn't seem like much. But, at 420 watts, thats huge - 435 watts SRM is roughly 420 watts Powertap. Big deal for FTP.

Therefore, ProTour teams with SRM should be producing more power than teams equipped with Powertaps. Especially for efforts above FTP.

 

[Steeplechase]

Remember a 3-4% difference in efficiency (I belive that's what Lucia paper showed going from memory) is a much bigger difference that a 3-4% difference in power output, which is why the fomulas for calculating vo2 from cycling power output aren't more accurate.

Are you able to elaborate on this a bit more? If efficiency changes by a fixed percentage, how does this have a greater effect on power output?

Coming from a science/engineering background...but I'm always very interested in the medical side of physiology.

 

[Steeplechase]

Efficiency varies from 20-25% according to both researchers and PowerTap literature. While 5% may sound like a lot, there is actually not much difference in efficiency between novice and elite cyclists and it is not something that is easy to improve either. In reference 1 below, a significant increase in efficiency was seen throughout the season: 19.6% to 20.6%! More interesting in reference 2, there was an inverse relationship between efficiency and VO2 max in professional cyclists, suggesting that efficiency compensated for a relatively low VO2 max in professional cyclists.

From reference #1 you provided Elapid, it makes sense why 2x20's and specifc FTP training are so effective. If this is the most effective zone to train in to improve metabolic efficiency as well as OBLA...well that is TSTWKT no doubt! Makes a lot of sense.

 

[DavidT]

If you improve efficiency from 20% to 22% that is a 2 point increase but a 10% increase ( (22-20)/20 ) in efficiency so with the same metabolic cost you would produce 10% more power at the rear wheel.

 

[Steeplechase]

If you improve efficiency from 20% to 22% that is a 2 point increase but a 10% increase ( (22-20)/20 ) in efficiency so with the same metabolic cost you would produce 10% more power at the rear wheel.

Right, we're comparing a difference in percentage to difference in absolute numbers. That being settled...a difference in mechanical efficiency is probable cause for a significant power gain at FTP.

Now the previous study in this thread showed a ~1% increase in efficiency over the course of the season. Is this enough evidence to prove that a professional cyclist can increase efficiency enough to make this entire thread worthless?

We need more studies...on professional cyclists I'm afraid to draw a real conclusion.

 

[DavidT]

Also, for a lot of these mountain top finishes where altitude is >2000m, power will be lower. Altitude ALWAYS lowers FTP watts. Taking all this into factor, a rider with an FTP of 420 watts at sea level and recovered may only be able to hold 360 watts or less for a 45 minute climb at altitude in the 2nd or 3rd week of the Tour.

I thought altitude has a direct affect on VO2max and an indirect affect on FTP because this lowering of the VO2max ceiling pushes down FTP, but the difference between power at VO2max and FTP is decreased.
I know when I did my last VO2max at the local university at 6500' the physiologists said the equivalent sea-level relative VO2max was about 3 mL/min/kg higher.

 

[DavidT]

Right, we're comparing a difference in percentage to difference in absolute numbers. That being settled...a difference in mechanical efficiency is probable cause for a significant power gain at FTP.

Now the previous study in this thread showed a ~1% increase in efficiency over the course of the season. Is this enough evidence to prove that a professional cyclist can increase efficiency enough to make this entire thread worthless?

We need more studies...on professional cyclists I'm afraid to draw a real conclusion.

Just shows how important it is to get a professional bike fit, the correct crank lengths, work on flexibility in the hip area and keep your shoes tightened up at crucial points in the race. My FTP in my TT position is 7% lower than in my road bike position, mainly due to poor flexibility. Makes me appreciate Fabian's flexibility in the TT.

 

[Steeplechase]

It is true that Vo2 Max is what decreases...but the point I was making is that POWER will always decrease with altitude >5000 feet. Regardless of the effect on decreasing Vo2 Max, Power at FTP will also be lowered. I'm not sure of the exact amount one would expect power to decrease. But it will decrease even after becoming acclimated from personal experience.

 

[BigBoat]

Absolute VO2 sets the ftp max. and VO2Max is more of a performance indicator.
I'd rather be 80kg's and have 6 w/kg than 60kg and have 6 w/kg - I would smash the 60kg guy in every TT.
the 80 kg guy have a higher VO2 than the 60kg guy. But they can have the same VO2Max
.

Depends... On long climbs the 80kg dude would loose out still because he's using more energy metabolically to turn over...60 kg rider would be more efficient and still win on a mountain top.

Is the 420 his 20 minute power or is it his 60 minute power? If it's his 60 minute power I wouldn't trust he was a clean rider

I personally (my "opinion") dont think anybody can get 420 watts for an hour nonstop without a high crit from epo or blood doping. Thats a $hitload of power to hold for an extended period of time.

It is true that Vo2 Max is what decreases...but the point I was making is that POWER will always decrease with altitude >5000 feet. Regardless of the effect on decreasing Vo2 Max, Power at FTP will also be lowered. I'm not sure of the exact amount one would expect power to decrease. But it will decrease even after becoming acclimated from personal experience.

Of course it will...All of it will never come back either. Recovery from training is also crappy at high altitude (9,000+).

 

[Steeplechase]

BibBoat....Isn't it possible to have a high-ish crit without blood doping/epo? Altitude training and REST have a huge effect...I have a crit of 44.5-46.5% mid season with no altitude work when recovered. Really really. Without recovering beforehand it's 40-41%. Big difference, ala "Peaking".

Also, we're not talking 420 watts for an hour for a 68kg rider. We're talking over 170lbs and over 75kg's. Also a ****ton of weight to carry compared to a lightweight.

 

[DavidT]

You would need a freaky V02 max of like 86-90 to get to 420 FTP at 172 pounds... Lemond was a talented freak with an FTP about 390 at 148-150. His V02 max was like 93!

You could say all the dudes in the TDF at 5.9 watt per kilo and over have V02 maxes over 95 and some close to 100. Mayby over that for Contadoper!

There's a rough formula over on the cycling-forums.

From what I understand, the relative or absolute VO2max, like max heart rate, is not the best predictor of performance. Power at VO2max is much better predictor for shorter efforts and for longer efforts power at threshold (FTP) is the best predictor.

 

[Steeplechase]

Of course it will...All of it will never come back either. Recovery from training is also crappy at high altitude (9,000+).

Correct, recovery is tougher at altitude. Over 9K feet is quite high. However, it is very possible to train a high FTP even at altitude. The altitude simply shifts the BLA curve up and to the left...lower power and higher lactate levels. Train right at OBLA and one should see power levels return when going back to sea level.

Now as for Vo2 max and above training, yes training at altitude does inhibit doing those "super hard" above LT efforts. Ideally one can preform these high power intervals with supplemental oxygen (while living at altitude) or at lower altitude for maximum benefit.