By way of background, about a month ago, I did a 4DP session on Sufferfest. For those of you who don't know, it directly tests your power for/at neuromuscular efforts (5s sprint), anaerobic capacity (1 min), maximal aerobic power (5 minutes), and functional threshold (based on 20 min effort) in one session. The sequencing is warm up, two sprints, 5 min test, 20 min test, then 1 min test. Based on uploading a dual-recorded file from my Quarq to Strava, I believe the MAP estimate is 100% of power during 5 minute test, and the FTP estimate is 100% of power during the 20 minute test (which, remember, comes after two sprints and a 5 min all out effort, hence they don't use the traditional 95% multiplier).
Sufferfest thinks that VO2 max is my weak spot. In data on an early 2020 blog post, they seem to show (second graph) that the median male (or at least, the median male in their data) has MAP about 125% of FTP. About 6 weeks ago, I had an FTP of 212W and an MAP of 264W, and my Sufferfest MAP is about 124.5% of my FTP, so I'm around their median. Put another way, my FTP is about 80% of my SUF MAP, whatever that is. I believe Trainer Road has said that MAP can be estimated by a 5-min all out effort, so I assume that the SUF estimate is in the ballpark - or is it?
By contrast, my understanding of the ramp test is that it directly measures your MAP or something like it, and you estimate your FTP from there. The standard multiplier is based on 0.75 of the power during your highest complete 1-min interval, plus a pro-ration of any uncompleted portion of the next interval. That implies that the average athlete has an FTP of 75% of their MAP, with some variation around that average. I think I've heard it can range from 72% to 78%. Or, again, is the ramp test measuring something other than your MAP, or are they measuring different definitions of MAP?
I ask because I just did a ramp test on Zwift, mainly to see what it was like. I figured I could see if the FTP estimate was plausible, and then manually adjust it using the Sufferfest multiplier (0.80) if it wasn't. And there are two problems. One is that I was given an estimated FTP of 245W, which implies an MAP of 326W and a 20 min FTP test target power of 258W. I don't think I can hold 258W for 20 minutes, or 245W for a long period. Looking at my Zwiftpower record, of my completed races, I held something like 240W for 20 minutes about a month ago. The second issue is that if I use Sufferfest's estimate of my FTP as a % of their MAP estimate, I would actually be adjusting my estimated FTP higher. So, is something off with my math or Sufferfest's logic? Or, again, are the 'MAP' estimates from SUF estimating a different quantity than the MAP measured by a ramp test?
Sufferfest did classify me as an attacker, meaning that I have a relatively strong anerobic system without being a pure sprinter. Logically, this should lead to something like a ramp test overestimating my FTP, so I'll just manually adjust my FTP downward. Next time, I'll focus on the traditional 20 minute test.
Sufferfest thinks that VO2 max is my weak spot. In data on an early 2020 blog post, they seem to show (second graph) that the median male (or at least, the median male in their data) has MAP about 125% of FTP. About 6 weeks ago, I had an FTP of 212W and an MAP of 264W, and my Sufferfest MAP is about 124.5% of my FTP, so I'm around their median. Put another way, my FTP is about 80% of my SUF MAP, whatever that is. I believe Trainer Road has said that MAP can be estimated by a 5-min all out effort, so I assume that the SUF estimate is in the ballpark - or is it?
By contrast, my understanding of the ramp test is that it directly measures your MAP or something like it, and you estimate your FTP from there. The standard multiplier is based on 0.75 of the power during your highest complete 1-min interval, plus a pro-ration of any uncompleted portion of the next interval. That implies that the average athlete has an FTP of 75% of their MAP, with some variation around that average. I think I've heard it can range from 72% to 78%. Or, again, is the ramp test measuring something other than your MAP, or are they measuring different definitions of MAP?
I ask because I just did a ramp test on Zwift, mainly to see what it was like. I figured I could see if the FTP estimate was plausible, and then manually adjust it using the Sufferfest multiplier (0.80) if it wasn't. And there are two problems. One is that I was given an estimated FTP of 245W, which implies an MAP of 326W and a 20 min FTP test target power of 258W. I don't think I can hold 258W for 20 minutes, or 245W for a long period. Looking at my Zwiftpower record, of my completed races, I held something like 240W for 20 minutes about a month ago. The second issue is that if I use Sufferfest's estimate of my FTP as a % of their MAP estimate, I would actually be adjusting my estimated FTP higher. So, is something off with my math or Sufferfest's logic? Or, again, are the 'MAP' estimates from SUF estimating a different quantity than the MAP measured by a ramp test?
Sufferfest did classify me as an attacker, meaning that I have a relatively strong anerobic system without being a pure sprinter. Logically, this should lead to something like a ramp test overestimating my FTP, so I'll just manually adjust my FTP downward. Next time, I'll focus on the traditional 20 minute test.