Hello All,
https://journals.lww.com/...valent_to.94787.aspx
Excerpt:
While mean bias was 2.9 ± 24.6 W, there were large limits of agreement (LOA) between FTP and LT4.0 (−45 to 51 W). All other lactate parameters, lactate threshold (LT) (236 ± 32 W), individual anaerobic threshold (244 ± 33 W), and LT thresholds determined using the Dmax method (221 ± 25 W) and modified Dmax method (238 ± 32 W) were significantly different from FTP (p < 0.05). While FTP strongly correlated with LT4.0, the large LOA refutes any equivalence as a measure with physiological basis.
Therefore, we would encourage athletes and coaches to use alternative field-based methods to predict cycling performance.
Cheers, Neal
+1 mph Faster
https://journals.lww.com/...valent_to.94787.aspx
Excerpt:
While mean bias was 2.9 ± 24.6 W, there were large limits of agreement (LOA) between FTP and LT4.0 (−45 to 51 W). All other lactate parameters, lactate threshold (LT) (236 ± 32 W), individual anaerobic threshold (244 ± 33 W), and LT thresholds determined using the Dmax method (221 ± 25 W) and modified Dmax method (238 ± 32 W) were significantly different from FTP (p < 0.05). While FTP strongly correlated with LT4.0, the large LOA refutes any equivalence as a measure with physiological basis.
Therefore, we would encourage athletes and coaches to use alternative field-based methods to predict cycling performance.
Cheers, Neal
+1 mph Faster