Such as shame I just cant do Mondays. Will you bring it to any of your other races?
Using even measured VO2 max for this is just stupid and shows how little the folks at zwift understand exercise physiology. Estimated VO2 max as anything but a descriptor is largely worthless. Zwift does some f%&king stupid things.
Their âbest estimationâ of MAP is also telling (how little they understand). We use MAP all the time in research publications. Protocols vary but we can easily settle on a good definition as Max 5 min power; some prefer 4-min, Seiler likes 6-min. Just take the best 5-min and be done.
We could debate the use of CP and the concept itself, but assuming its a good measure, mixing and matching CP and FTP is again stupid bordering on asinine. Again, we have very specific definitions for these values. Mixing them up doesnât make them better. Pick one and stick with it.
The simplest way is to analyze the power curve or just pick specific levels, 15, 30, 300, 1200, and 3600-sec (ie, 15-sec to 1-hr). Nothing, and I mean nothing, beats 1-hr power for a definitive estimate of max lactate steady state (incorrectly equated to LT).
Iâve reached out to Min many times over the years about working with them on all this stuff and publishing research. Minâs in his own little bubble.
CH
1 Like
8-min for MAP is too long. Nothing in the research (aka, actual validated data) supports that. Seiler uses 8-min repeats which are ~80-85% of Max aerobic power.
Both are worthless.
1 Like
Calm down a little. You have to understand these are just numbers. zFTP isnât FTP. zMAP isnât MAP. zVO2 isnât VO2 max. They are just calculated numbers that Zwift are using to determine if someone needs to be upgraded⌠different points on a power curve. As they are not used for any other purpose, it really doesnât matter that they donât mean what they are supposed to mean.
I agree that using VO2 and MAP terminology is not the best approach, but apart from confusing people who do know what those terms mean, it doesnât have any other negative impact.
Roughly an hour is 1-hr +/- 10 min at most. Calling 40 min an hour is wrong, and while better than 20 min, can still be well off the mark of 1-hr power. Mixing and matching FTP and CP shows they donât understand what theyâre doing. Pick one way and stick with it. The CP curve, skipping CP altogether, can be very useful. Maybe itâs time Zwift hire more than computer techs and marketing people.
Misinformation always has a negative impact. Thereâs no reason not to get it right. The science is all there and they could come up with a better system. Instead they feed nonsensical use of variables. Again, there is no point in adding VO2 max other than for the less informed to be fooled more. Everyone deserves to receive accurate information.
2 Likes
I do agree that the should not be using the terms FTP, MAP and VO2. They already have meaning and will be confuse riders that know what these things actually mean, and quite possibly have them modelled accurately elsewhere.
If they want to make it Zwifty I am sure they could call them something completely unique.
1 Like
maybe brother. what i suspect they are doing is taking your 3 and your 12 min, splitting the difference somewhere along the line and deriving a whole lot of estimated info about your MAP, vo2, your â â â â size, and your social security number from that. it is possibly colossally stupid but i donât come up with these systems.
1 Like
you need to take that one up with Dr Coggan himself iâm afraid, thatâs his personal definition of âroughly an hourâ. you can find him on slowtwitch or timetriallingforums or somewhere
I donât think Zwift can complain about misinformation and inaccuracies then pump out something that will confuse users and expect putting a Z in front of the term will fix it and reduce confusionâŚ
Will people expect their zftp to be close to their actual ftp, Iâd suggest yes they wouldâŚ
2 Likes
Yes, as I wrote above, I agree.
Not really. I know Andy, and I know we donât agree on everything. But while he has more publications than I do, it doesnât mean his word is gospel. I like simple. 1-hr is clean and simple and my very early research showed that the correlation between the 40 k TT on a trainer and MLSS is 0.99. At 40-min, some riders can exceed MLSS; Glenn Swan (who we tested) being one of them.
Donât want to derail this conversation too much but the TTE for FTP is extremely trainable. Ever listen to the Empirical Cycling podcast?
2 Likes
I think the issue is very few people have done true long (20min->1hr) max efforts within Zwift, so the values Zwift has that are a more accurate representation of a personâs max effort are well under 20mins.
2 Likes
Maybe this is a naive view. I donât disagree that a 40km TT is a very good determination of ftp. And it works for me. But to use ftp to classify Zwift races is like using 10km running times to classify 100m runners. Zwift has almost zero races where true ftp is the determining factor.
4 Likes
Not necessarily. If we go by the determinants of endurance performance, lactate threshold (or itâs many surrogates) accounts for 90+% of the variation in performance. So by itself itâs probably the best. Doing lactate testing is impractical, so the next best thing is the 40 k, bc as has been shown (in research) it is virtually identical to max lactate steady state (MLSS). Now to your point, Zwift races tend to be shorter, and so other values, IMO 30-sec and 5-min to keep it low, would fill in much of the performance differences. Incidentally this is essentially what WAHOO and INCYD are doing when they combine 4 or 5 abilities into one overall performance metric.
OK. I agree, EXCEPT this is not what zwift is trying to do. They say they want better comprehensive performance distinctions (ie, better sorting), so if you want the best metrics use the best data. I think this is essential for higher up racing leagues. For the everyday zwift crit or 2 bridges race, it doesnât matter. But if you say I need a power meter, or dare we say dual power, but then use a half-assed approach to performance measurement then I say you (eg, Zwift) is FoS on their attempt at validity.
Any chance you could let me know your name so that I can look up some of your publications ?
1 Like
C Harnish. You can email me and Iâll send them to you bc theyâre not open access and not readily available if youâre not on research gate.