Is FTP the same as MLSS?
In 15 cyclists the average bias was 1.4%, but one rider could miss by ±9.2% (±11.8% in the less trained). Fair for a group, rough for one person. Small; abstract only.
Klitzke Borszcz, Ferreira Tramontin and Pereira Costa asked whether FTP, taken as 95% of average power in a 20-min time trial, predicts MLSS. Fifteen cyclists did an incremental test to exhaustion, an FTP test and several constant-load tests to determine MLSS. For power, bias ± 95% limits of agreement were 1.4% ± 9.2%, typical error of the estimate 4.7%, r = .91.
By level: trained 1.4% ± 11.8% (typical error 6.4%), well trained 1.3% ± 7.4% (3.0%). For heart rate: −1.4% ± 8.2%, typical error 4.0%, r = .80. The authors conclude that trained and well-trained cyclists "can use FTP as a noninvasive and practical alternative to estimate MLSS". Our reading: at group level the agreement is good, and the authors' conclusion rests on that.
For one rider the limits reach roughly a tenth either side (the abstract does not say percent of what). This sits awkwardly beside REF-1325 (B), where MLSS was 93.1 ± 5.1% of FTP in 18 riders, a mean gap of about 7% (our arithmetic), with FTP minus MLSS from −8 to +51 W. Both are small validations, and neither settles the average.
What they share is the width of the individual error.
Protocol
Key Results
| Comparison with MLSS | Bias ± 95% LoA | Typical error | r |
|---|---|---|---|
| Power, all (n = 15) | 1.4% ± 9.2% | 4.7% | .91 |
| Power, trained (7) | 1.4% ± 11.8% | 6.4% | not given |
| Power, well trained (8) | 1.3% ± 7.4% | 3.0% | not given |
| Heart rate, all | −1.4% ± 8.2% | 4.0% | .80 |
Mechanisms
Practical Application
Limitations
How this entry was checked and changed
(from the abstract) — the rubric's B for a test validation study, lowered a step as an abstract-only small study with key methods missing (MLSS criteria, testing order, pacing, sex split), as the base does for REF-1256 and REF-1258; the agreement statistics themselves are in the abstract