So you are using Mesics software?
https://www.mesics.de/lclactat-en/
How do you like it? I might purchase a license if I like the demo…but I don’t like the monthly subscription model.
106kg
Ill make sure to do the 30s 3m and 20m next week and let u know.
The interpretation of “precision” varies depending on the context. For instance, in the case of the metabolic profile provided in my previous message, we observe a highly glycolytic cyclist. This individual can produce a powerful sprint of up to 1400W and sustain high power outputs for short durations. With a VLamax of 0.6, he aligns closely with professional classic racers (0.6/0.7), but falls short of world-class sprinters (0.7/0.8). His anaerobic threshold is at 226W, VO2max at 336W, and FTP at 242W. Following a prolonged injury, his endurance remains underdeveloped.
Due to his robust glycolytic capabilities, any FTP test he undergoes will consistently overestimate his actual FTP. Previous assessments from ramp tests and 20-minute tests have placed his FTP estimation in the range of 270W-280W. If I applied the identical algorithm as interval.icu to compute his FTP from his 3-minute power, I would arrive at 275W.
The athlete completed a sixty-minute Zwift test with an average power output of 231W. Despite falling short of his full potential 242W, there are several factors to consider: increased heat indoors, the utilisation of different muscle groups while on a stationary bike leading to a potential 10% decrease in power, residual fatigue, and so on.
When looking at precision from another perspective, attempting to incorporate his 242W FTP into the Coggan model results in a VO2max zone of 253W-290W, whereas his actual VO2max limit is at 336W.
When discussing the precision of different techniques, the most reliable method is a load test using an oxygen mask, assuming the equipment is well-maintained and calibrated. However, even this test may have an error margin of around 5%.
If we look at lactate testing with portable devices, the accuracy of such testing can be unpredictable. A colleague of mine tested the local soccer team last week. He put the blood sample from the same time slot into devices from three different manufactures and got three completely different results, like 30% difference. I can predict a shift to oxygen saturation measurements in the near future but this technology is still developing. We use Moxy to identify limiters.
Several independent scientific validation studies have been conducted to compare the INSCYD PPD test with a load test using an oxygen mask. These studies have essentially verified that the results obtained from both methods are highly comparable.
Thanks for the response 
When attempting to analyze performance, I agree…context is important to understand how precise something is.
However, I was speaking about numerical precision (VO2max to two decimal places!) and the claim about precise zones, etc. The models typically give a very exact number when the underlying data that was used to develop the model is actually quite scattered. The software you use may provide exact values and “precise” zones to a single watt and pretty charts, but it is misleading to people who don’t understand modeling.
Furthermore, Mader’s model is comprised of numerous correlations, empirically-derived constants, and other relationships built upon one another and the relationships are not exact or precise.
But don’t get me wrong, I like the model and find it useful…I just wouldn’t claim that it’s precise.
In my profession, we typically use upper-and lower-bound estimates when back-calculating parameters from a performance (which Inscyd/Mesics does). In my opinion, the software you’re using should really provide a range of potentially valid metabolic parameter values and not a single value. That’s what I was getting at.
1 Like